The Vulture vs. the Pig

The race for the lone seat to the US House of Representatives from Montana is an anomaly in the animal kingdom. Montana voters have a Democrat who made his fortune feasting off the illegal activity of mob bosses in California (i.e. the “Vulture”) and we have a “Pig” in Denny Rehberg, or so labeled by our colleague in words – Montana Cowgirl. She makes this accusation because of the multitude of earmarks he has sponsored and brought back to Montana over the years he has been in Washington. It is easy to criticize the Congressman for this, but it is only easy because of the negative connotation given to earmarks by the national media and political campaigns to distract us from real wasteful spending. Earmarks are not a bad thing, a conclusion is based on three premises: (1) Earmarks in themselves, are the most transparent form of appropriation; (2) Earmarks actually get things done; and (3) Let’s look at the big picture!

First of all, earmarks themselves are very transparent. An earmark is not a general appropriation to a government agency to fund the director’s agenda and the bureaucracy that comes with it; it is a funding mechanism for a specific task or project. Some examples of earmarks brought forth by the Congressman in recent years – $1.5 million for the new interchange in Belgrade, $3.6 million for animal research in Bozeman, more than $30 million for water rights and water improvements on Indian Reservations in Montana, $200,000 to the Rocky Mountain Development Council for affordable housing, and $250,000 for a sexual assault examination nurse at the Billings Clinic. I think these are all things we need here in Montana and I don’t think Cowgirl would disagree with me. Congressman Rehberg understands that here in Montana there are problems we cannot solve without raising state property or income taxes – why not use that 30% of our income we send to Washington every year to help out the folks at home?

Secondly, without earmarks we would be missing out on a lot of essential projects here in Montana. The BIA and other agencies would not have moved forward on water compacts with the Indian Tribes, conservation initiatives like the Blackfoot Challenge, Rocky Mountain Front Coalition, and Montana Legacy Project would receive no funding, and local governments would have no chance of bringing infrastructure to rural towns. Earmarks aren’t intrinsically bad, they fund many good projects. Problems arise when the dollar amounts garnered by Congress are directly proportional to seniority and political capital and not the merits of a specific project.

Finally, what really doesn’t make sense about Cowgirl’s post is that she fails to mention the total amount of the national budget earmarks actually amount to in a fiscal year. 2006 had the highest dollar amount ever of earmarks at $29 billion which amounts to about ONE PERCENT of the total budget. In 2010, the Pig Book reports that there are $16.5 billion in earmarks – the budget is $3.6 trillion – so about .5% of our money is going to designated projects. Remember the stimulus bill cost $800 billion and healthcare will cost $1 trillion; can’t we find a better place to cut spending?

I am not saying that all earmarks are good, but here in Montana we see what earmarks can do for us everyday – infrastructure, conservation, and education. In the current times of soaring national deficits, why don’t we cut some real pork that won’t hurt progress in our state? Before we end, we shouldn’t forget about our Senator Tester, in the ’06 Burns/Tester debate the Senator said something to the effect of, “I will not support one earmark, period.” Since 2008 he has supported over $300 million in earmarks. Come on Cowgirl, before you go making a petty political attack because Denny tried to make a point about out of control spending, do a little research.