More transparency on earmarks

The Gazette Editorial Board

----

Earmarks - those spending bill add-ons that members of Congress use to finance home-state pet projects - amount to less than 1 percent of spending in the federal budget. But they have drawn increasing attention as public concern about politicians using their position to enrich themselves has grown.

A Washington Post investigation published Tuesday undoubtedly will add to the scrutiny. The Post found that 33 members of Congress - none from Iowa - added $300 million worth of earmarks for dozens of projects that are next to or within 2 miles of their own property, all since 2008.

The report raises questions about ethics rules that Congress writes for itself. They allow such earmarks. And disclosure rules are far from transparent.

Lawmakers do not have to report the addresses of their personal residences or the employment of their children and parents. They also can put property into holding companies without disclosing the locations of such properties.

The ethics rules do require lawmakers to vouch that they don't have a financial stake in actions they take. But the Post's reported that no lawmaker admitted to owning property near an earmarked project or had a family member employed by a company receiving funding because congressional rules don't require them to note proximity.

It would be unfair to say that the earmark projects these 33 lawmakers sought produced no significant public benefit.

Still, when earmarks fund improvements to roads running past a congressman's development property or restore a beach a few hundred feet from a congressman's vacation cottage, taxpayer skepticism is only natural. And the Post report - online at www.washingtonpost.com - revealed dozens of similar outcomes.

Is it time to end earmarks for good? After all, they've been controversial for decades. In 2007, Congress required lawmakers to list their names beside any earmarks they sought. And last year, Congress placed a two-year moratorium on new earmarks, which the Senate voted last week to extend another year.

We're not sure that permanently banning all earmarks, which can provide critical help to major infrastructure needs, is the right way to go. But Congress must at least improve its transparency. Americans should be able to find out if a proposed earmark project is near a congressmen's property and could benefit them personally. And, in another conflict-of-interest issue, expect them to disclose stock trades to be sure insider advantage isn't at play.

Upfront disclosure is vital to begin reversing the all-time low level of public confidence in Congress. And that goes for both sides of the political aisle. Transparency isn't partsan.

n Comments: thegazette.com/

category/opinion/editorial or

editorial@sourcemedia.net