The Sisyphean challenge of ending congressional pork spending has precious few takers. Fewer than two dozen principled lawmakers are just saying no to earmarks, even as hundreds of their colleagues engorge themselves and their districts on billions of dollars worth of profligate projects every year.
But more and more members of Congress are finding a conscience. They're finally recognizing that pork spending grows the budget deficit, and that wasteful appropriations amid a sinking economy are an affront to taxpayers living paycheck to paycheck. Lawmakers cannot legitimately cry about a lack of funding for social programs, homeland security and aging infrastructure when they can find the cash for Alaska's infamous "bridge to nowhere," Boston's "Big Dig" highway boondoggle and a teapot museum in North Carolina.
"There's a growing awareness that the system is broken, and we aren't going to fix it unless some of us start taking a stand," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., who decided to go cold turkey on pork last year. Of the nearly 10,000 earmarks worth $10 billion in December's massive appropriations bill, he had none.
Lawmakers who continue to indulge in earmarks -- self-described fiscal conservatives among them -- argue that if they don't bring some money home for their constituents, other states are lined up at the trough to steal the leftovers.
But the representatives and senators who've stopped bringing home the bacon aren't hearing complaints from voters. In fact, many enjoy the support of citizens tired of seeing tax dollars squandered on projects that have little merit. These taxpayers are content to let other states bear the guilt of such extravagance, if such sacrifices bring the country closer to fiscal responsibility and accountability.
No, most of the squealing these lawmakers hear comes from ... state and local governments, the biggest beneficiaries of federal pork.
Members of Congress, who spend most of their time in Washington, don't come up with ideas for earmarks on their own. They're bombarded with pork requests from state legislatures, law enforcement agencies, public colleges and universities and municipal governments.
Rep. Kline has few friends on the Scott County Board in Shakopee, Minn. Its members are miffed that he refuses to request federal funding for a road they want built.
"I told him I'd prefer that he continue to work within the system while fighting it," said Jon Ulrich, a commissioner. "The projects that we were requesting were very worthy projects."
Just last week, the Las Vegas City Council approved a $14 million wish list that will be forwarded to Nevada's congressional delegation.
Among the requests: $500,000 for an "urban forestry program" to plant trees, primarily in older neighborhoods just northwest of downtown, and $500,000 to let more city bureaucrats tool around town in hybrid vehicles.
"It's pretty run of the mill," said city Government Affairs Director Tony Olivas.
Run of the mill, indeed. That the City Council would ask federal taxpayers to pay for questionable earmarks, then turn around and complain to local residents about revenue woes that will hurt "vital services" -- with Mayor Oscar Goodman advocating state tax increases, no less -- is indicative of the waste and dubious prioritization at all levels of government.
The fight against pork can't be waged only in Washington. Shame must be brought to every statehouse and city hall as well.
Along with Rep. Kline, a few of the other lawmakers brave enough to abstain from earmark spending deserve recognition. They include: Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Jim DeMint, R-S.C., Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Reps. Tom Price, R-Ga., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
Unfortunately, no one among the Nevada congressional delegation is represented in this important movement. How about it, Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign and Reps. Shelley Berkley, Jon Porter and Dean Heller? Will any of you do your part to change this destructive system?
RSS