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.

I write again about this subject – Congressional “earmarks” – for several reasons:

• It’s timely given what is happening in Congress.

• The lobbying firm where I worked for almost 25 years operates an office in Washington, D.C. and has engaged extensively in the process of securing federal funds for local projects.

• No less an insightful columnist than George Will opined on the subject, advocating for the retention of earmarks in Congress.

Here is the way Will started his recent column, which appeared under a headline much like the one in this blog:

“The wary and partial revival of earmarks by congressional Republicans is, on balance, welcome.  This is so partly because it illustrates how coping with the transaction costs of democracy is often a matter of balancing the admirable with the regrettable.

“For those of you who sometimes forget things that once seemed unforgettable, long ago — about a decade ago — many in Congress, especially conservatives, decided that earmarks were a scandal, the elimination of which would make a mighty improvement in national governance.  Earmarks are spending items directed by individual members of Congress to particular state or local projects.

“Members became promiscuous with this practice, until it became notorious, thanks to one such project, the 2005 “Bridge to Nowhere,” which would have connected, at a cost of $223 million, an Alaskan community of 8,900 to its airport on a nearby island with a population of 50, thereby sparing fliers a 15-minute commute by ferry and a cost of $6 per car.

“Like problem drinkers forswearing demon rum, Republicans banned earmarks.  Bemused Democrats lacked enthusiasm for this political version of Prohibition:  They argued, plausibly, that members of Congress know better than executive branch agencies do their states’ or districts’ needs.”

So, the debate over earmarks continues, with, essentially, two competing views:

• PRO:  It is what columnist Will wrote – legislators know better what kinds of projects will help their local areas than do members of the Executive Branch.  Plus, a side benefit of earmarks is that it helps Members of Congress negotiate with each other over how to develop the federal budget.  [Not balance it, of course, because, unlike state government budgets, the federal budget does not have to be balanced.]
• CON:  All earmarks do is inflate the federal budget, curry unnecessary favor for legislators in local districts, and may not, as was the case in the “bridge to nowhere,” have anything to do with solid budget allocations.

Another issue revolves around terminology.  As Congress returns to earmarks, the label has changed.  It is now “community project requests.”

Oregon’s Congressional Delegation is asking for a number of projects:  More than $6 million to repair and improve the Willamette Falls Locks in West Linn; $2 million to create a railway quiet zone through parts of Oregon City’ $793,000 to help Portland Community College develop an artificial intelligence program; $2 million to repair track and trestles for the 5.5-mile Willamette Shore Line Rail from Lake Oswego to Portland’ $500,000 to help Oregon Technology Business Center in Beaverton develop a non-profit incubator; more than $2 million to help the Virginia Garcia Health Center expand its Newberg clinic.

Are all these projects worthy competitors?  Who knows?  But, at first blush, they sound reasonable, especially compared to the “bridge to nowhere.” 

Returning to earmarks is, to me, a good plan, if one thing rings true.  It is that Members of Congress will advocate for real projects that meet real needs in their districts.

Can we count on that?  Perhaps not, but, overall and on balance, I think it’s worth a try.