PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The word “earmarks” conjures up controversial political notions about the process of producing the annual federal government budget.

Such as the headline which compares spending to benefit local congressional districts with “pork,” which means, in the vernacular of politics, stupid spending that does no good.

But what is the definition of the term earmarks.

Here’s what the dictionary says:

“An earmark refers to congressional provisions directing funds to be spent on specific projects.”

Detractors say that earmarks pollute the federal budget because certain powerful lawmakers can steer funding for unworthy projects to their home districts.  In some cases, that may be true, such as the fabled “bridge to nowhere” project in Alaska.

Proponents counter that earmarks are part of the process of representative government in Congress when members steer funding to specific projects in their districts – projects which address real issues and which help to solve problems in local areas.

A story by the Associated Press (AP) asked this question the other day:  Can lawmakers bring home the bacon without it being pork?

It’s a question that’s vexing Republicans as they consider whether to join a Democrat push to revive the much-maligned earmarks process.   

Earmarking was linked to corruption in the 2000s, leading to an outcry and their banishment in the House and Senate.  But many in Congress said the ban has gone too far, ceding the “power of the purse” to party leaders and the Executive Branch, and giving lawmakers less incentive to work with members of the other party on major legislation, including local appropriations.

According to the AP:  “Democrat appropriators in the House see a solution and are proposing a revamped process allowing lawmakers to submit public requests for ‘community project funding’ in federal spending bills.  To guard against graft, the process includes safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest.

“Whether earmarking becomes bi-partisan could have enormous implications not only for the allocation of spending across the country, but for President Joe Biden, who is gearing up for a massive infrastructure push that he hopes will attract significant Republican support.  With earmarking in place, bi-partisanship could prove easier to achieve, as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle could have reason to support bills they would otherwise oppose.”

So, what’s my view?  Well, first, in the spirit of full disclosure, the lobbying firm in which I was a partner for about 25 years fought for earmarks extensively as we represented a number of local governments in the Northwest.  So, I am not an unbiased source.

When earmarks were allowed, our firm fought for them.  When earmarks were not allowed, our D.C. staff worked the process to gain funding for local governments without an earmark.

And, as a point of emphasis, we never advocated for a project such as the “bridge to nowhere.”

I support the return of earmarks if appropriate conditions are attached, so the expenditures can be considered “investments,” not just more spending.

The entire debate in Congress over restoring earmarks is likely to come down to that:  Making sure funding allocations can meet the test of being investments.