(Hat tip to Polinaut) Along with fellow Minnesotan Jim Ramstad, Walz has joined a bi-partisan group of Representatives advocating earmark reform. The AP story from the LaCrosse Tribune:
U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-La Crosse, is one of several members of Congress calling for creation of a bipartisan commission to recommend reforms on Congressional spending for pet projects, commonly referred to as earmarks.
Kind — along with U.S. Reps. Tim Walz, D-Minn.; Jim Ramstad R-Minn.; Jim Cooper D-Tenn.; Melissa Bean, D-Ill.; Mark Udall, D-Colo.; and Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md. — on Tuesday introduced the Bipartisan Earmark Reform Commission Act of 2008.
“Abuse of the earmarking system has eroded the public’s trust in the process and overshadowed the worthy projects earmarks often fund,” said Kind, who has imposed a one-year moratorium on his own earmark requests while he works to reform the process.
“From a ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ to a rainforest in Iowa — any member of Congress, whether they are an advocate or foe of earmarks, needs to be accountable to the taxpayers for the staggering growth in earmark spending,” Kind said in a statement. The commission would examine:
Disparities in funding across communities and regions;The practice of securing earmarks for for-profit companies;
The impact of earmarks on the federal budget; and
The usefulness and sufficiency of current disclosure requirements.
“This is clearly a bipartisan problem perpetuated by both the Congress and the White House, and it requires a bipartisan solution,” Kind said. “This type of ‘ATM politics’ is threatening good government.”
And from CQ Politics, there's Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Bill on Overhauling Earmarks Process:
House Democratic leaders gave little indication Tuesday of what changes, if any, they plan to make to the earmark process this year. But that has not stopped members of both parties from pushing for commissions and committees to study the issue and propose changes.
The latest effort — a bipartisan one — was spearheaded by Rep. Ron Kind , D-Wis., and proposes an independent commission to study the earmarking process in both Congress and the executive branch.
The commission would be charged with examining disparities in funding, the practice of securing earmarks for for-profit companies, the impact of earmarks on the budget and the effectiveness of current disclosure requirements.
Among other things, the commission would consider whether earmarks could be allocated based on merit or if a competitive grant process could be used for grant funding, effectively altering the very definition of earmarks as they are now understood.
The commission would be required to report its findings and recommendations within six months, with legislation incorporating the recommendations to be introduced within two months thereafter.
Kind’s bill has four Democratic cosponsors: Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Melissa Bean of Illinois, Mark Udall of Colorado and Tim Walz of Minnesota.
Two Republicans, both of whom are leaving at the end of this Congress, also are cosponsors: Jim Ramstad of Minnesota and Wayne T. Gilchrest of Maryland.
In a conference call with reporters, Kind and Cooper stressed the bipartisan nature of their bill and their hopes that it will be taken seriously.
“Congress needs to stop and re-evaluate the way we appropriate money for projects around the country,” Cooper said. “We shouldn’t wait for another indictment to be handed down before demonstrating that we take stewardship of taxpayer money seriously.”
Read the rest below the fold.
Their proposal is similar to one (
H Con Res 263) by House Republican appropriators Jack Kingston of Georgia, Frank R. Wolf of Virginia and Zach Wamp of Tennessee that would establish a joint select committee to study the earmarking issue and report its findings within six months. But that proposal, which has the backing of GOP leaders, also includes a moratorium on earmarks until the select committee reports its findings.
Although both Kind and Cooper have voluntarily eschewed earmark requests this year, Kind said they did not propose a moratorium in order to improve the bill’s chance of passage. Including a mandatory moratorium, Kind said, “would have shut down the conversation.”
Kind said they alerted Democratic leaders of their plans for the bill. “They’re feeling a little sensitive about this now . . . because of the reforms taken last year,” he said, referring to new earmark disclosure requirements adopted at the start of this Congress. He said Democratic leaders had made them no promises about embracing their bill.
House Republicans continue to debate the issue within their caucus. Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio — who has said public disgust with earmarks contributed to Republicans losing their majority in the 2006 elections — urged colleagues to think again about what the party should do regarding earmarks.
“To those who believe the status quo on earmarks is fine, I challenge you: How can we sustain that position in the fall when our presidential nominee, John McCain , has vowed to veto any bill that contains earmarks?” Boehner asked. “To those who believe House Republicans should have a self-imposed earmark moratorium right now, I challenge you: How will we enforce it?”
Although the GOP has coalesced around the Kingston-Wolf-Wamp proposal and repeatedly called on Democrats to impose a moratorium, Democratic leaders have shown little inclination to do so.
Republicans have taken some piecemeal steps, with some individuals abstaining from earmarks this year and the party as a whole agreeing not to name projects after themselves.
“That gives us a good issue for the fall — but it doesn’t do anything to stop the problem,” Boehner said. “And frankly, it isn’t enough to restore our brand.” . . .
Read the rest at CQ Politics.
Interesting list of Congressman including Blue Dogs (Bean and Cooper) and those the have sworn off earmarks (Kind, Udall and Cooper) but unfortunately, Ramstad and Gilchrist will not be on the ballot in November.
Walz is taking a very intelligent approach to highlighting how earmarks are not necessarily pork-barrell spending. This group needs to challenge Kline and Bachmann (who are on the pork-free diet) to sign-up.
Alas, as much as the House may make improvements, the Senate is another story. Just yesterday, they refused on Roll Call Vote 104 to prohibit spending increases for earmarks already contained in the Highway Bill. Norm Coleman (Minnesota's leading spender) voted to kill the amendment.
FYI - Did you see the Hill.com article that The American Future Fund TV ads, which supported Coleman in is efforts to get money for the collapsed Interstate-35W bridge, did not generate the positive impact his credibility and appeal.
Wilson Research political director Tyler Harber said “This ad tries to paint Coleman more as an independent than a Republican in a year where being a GOP senator is an electoral burden; however, insiders just aren't buying it.”
How we spend money is important, but I thought that Ashwin Madia has the right approach ... earmarks have a function - can be abused but with illumination should not be -- but if you look at the overall government spending, pork-barrell spending is relatively small. There are programs in the Defense Department -- where the big money is -- which need serious scrutiny ... while DOD spends monies on comic books and inefficient equipment ... and just last week announced that the Defense Department was transferring an additional $600 million into Iraq reconstruction projects, including 55 new police stations. WHY aren't those monies being used for OUR VETERANS?
The article mentions Zach Wamp (R-TN) who you may recall was the Congressman that got Bush's evil eye when he wanted the Iraq supplemental funding bills be loans ... instead it's an open-ended checkbook gift from our grandchildren ... and now five years later, Coleman is finally coming around to looking at how much is spent.
Ollie says: Great stuff! Thanks for commenting--I hope you can expand on these points at Minnesota Central.
Posted by: MinnesotaCentral | April 17, 2008 at 05:22 PM