Opinion: What's So Bad About Earmarks?

(Nov. 16) -- Few words are dirtier in Washington than "earmark." Soon-to-be House Speaker John Boehner has vowed to ban them. President Barack Obama has called for earmark reform. The chairmen of the president's debt commission say the practice should be eliminated. And on Monday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., reversed himself and says he now backs an earmarks moratorium.

Meanwhile, Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican expected to chair the House Oversight Committee next year, called Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times." He later scaled back his charge, saying that Obama was not "personally corrupt," but added, "When you hand a president nearly a trillion dollars in walking around money, [and] he uses it for political paybacks, that's corrupt."

Really? What's wrong with cronyism if the crony is competent? What's wrong with an earmark if the project is worthy?

President Lyndon Johnson had an aide, Bobby Baker, whose job it was to find out what a legislator wanted and/or needed, and withhold it until Johnson needed his vote. That's how Johnson got civil rights, Medicare and Medicaid through a reluctant Congress. Baker later went to prison on charges not involving his role in rounding up votes.

President Ronald Reagan got his tax cuts by catering to Rep. (later Sen.) John Breaux, R-La., who explained, "I can't be bought, but I can be rented." President Bill Clinton gave away the store to enact NAFTA. Under President George W. Bush, earmarks increased from $7.7 billion to $9 billion (still a minuscule percentage of the budget). President Obama got his health care reform bill with the help of the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback, among other earmarks.

These presidents were adhering closely to the late Jake Arvey's definition of politics. The Chicago political boss explained that "there are many definitions of politics -- the art of compromise, the art of the possible -- but to me, politics is the art of putting people under obligation to you."

This is best achieved through patronage (including earmarks) -- the discretionary favors of government in exchange for political support. The good news is that patronage drives public policy. The bad news is that patronage drives public policy. It greases the wheels of government and leads to laws that would not otherwise be enacted. How one feels about patronage, like earmarks, at any given moment depends on how one feels about particular laws, like Medicare or tax cuts.

It is true that earmarks, which used to be called "pork," are highly susceptible to waste, fraud and abuse. Examples:

Although successive presidents did not want production of more F-22 fighter planes, they were unable to end the project because components of the F-22s were built in 33 states and hundreds of districts, whose senators and House members were concerned about the loss of jobs. President Obama finally succeeded in ending the earmark.

The John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pa., received tens of millions of dollars in state-of-the-art equipment because Rep. John Murtha happened to chair the House defense appropriations subcommittee.

And let's not forget the $433 million for the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, earmarked because Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. This earmark was finally abandoned.

Earmarks and patronage thrive because they are an essential tool of government.

The late Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill once told luncheon guests how President Jimmy Carter pleaded with him to lobby on behalf of an energy bill. O'Neill advised Carter, "Call the fellows in, see what they want -- a bridge, a road, a post office. Work with them." But Carter was "above" pork barrel politics and, no surprise, his energy bill was trashed.

In contrast, O'Neill said, he had successfully lobbied 17 House members on behalf of NAFTA, at President Clinton's behest. Clinton spoke the language of politics, and that's how he got NAFTA through, by a whisker.

One of the guests was appalled. "Tip," she said, "that's a hell of a way to run a government."

Tip gave her his 14-karat smile and replied, "Mary, darlin', that's the only way to run a government."

Martin and Susan Tolchin are authors of the newly published, "Pinstripe Patronage: Political Favoritism from the Clubhouse to the White House and Beyond." Mr. Tolchin capped 40 years at The New York Times by founding The Hill newspaper and then became senior publisher and editor of Politico. Mrs. Tolchin is university professor of public policy at George Mason University.