Speakers discuss congressional earmarks, shift of power between branches

By: Brooke Lein

Posted: 9/18/08

In conjunction with Constitution Day, speakers Ernest Istook and Richard Riley discussed congressional spending in times of war at the MSC Wiley Lecture Series Wednesday.

"Two features that seem to dominate much of the political climate are [those] which relate to war powers and congressional earmarks," said Richard Riley, professor of political science at Baylor University.

Riley opened his argument by referring to the constant shift of power between the executive and legislative branches. He refers to this transaction of authority as "the water balloon theory of government," in which one side expands while the other portion is constricted.

"The history of presidential power is one of steady, if often times uneven, growth over the past 200 years," Riley said. Past presidents like Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln have redefined the role and authority of the office.

Riley conceded that in times of crisis, Congress has traditionally debated, deliberated, and delegated more power to the executive branch with the hope that the issue will be properly addressed.

In the wake of the attacks of Sept. 11, for example, the Bush presidency and the Congress took aggressive action to search out and destroy those who were deemed responsible for the loss of nearly 3,000 lives.

Congress passed a series of legislation, including the Patriot Act and the Detainee Treatment Act, which allocated a broad range of power to the executive branch in the inquisition of guilty terrorist regimes.

Congress has traditionally retained the "power of the purse," meaning the legislative branch has the ability to control and appropriate government funds. However, in recent years, Congress seems to be more financially submissive to the president.

In 2002, Congress apportioned $249 billion for defense and by 2004, the price tag grew to $454 billion. The defense budget the Bush administration presented to Congress in February of 2008 was an estimated $730 billion.

In an effort to promote communication and consultation between the executive and legislative branch on the loaded issue of war, the "War Powers Consultation Act" was proposed.

"We are at a standstill and we clearly need thought given to this proposal," Riley said.

Former Oklahoma congressman Earnest Istook talked about Pork Barrel expenditures, and the negative effects of earmarking funding.

Istook defined earmarks as anything that directs, specifically, the use of money. He said that they are used to get around certain "formulas" used by the congressional appropriations committee to direct governmental funds.

"The problem is that earmarks can go crazy," Istook said.

Members of Congress abuse the ability to earmark money, and a significant amount of low priority projects are funded at the expense of more pressing national issues.

Istook used the collapsing of a Minnesota bridge as an example of the dangers that pork barrel politics pose to the welfare of citizens. He explained that the transportation bills that were presented to Congress prior to the deadly collapse were geared towards allocating funds for new, unnecessary sidewalks.

By failing to address the bigger, more prevalent problem, Congress refused and overlooked the opportunity to prevent the deaths of innocent people.

Istook compared earmark funding to Lays potato chips.

"Once you get started, you can't do just one, and that's the difficulty," he said.

Istook inferred that earmarking funds is, in most cases, an illustration of each congressman's commitment to his or her district. He said that members of Congress often appropriate funds to projects that will benefit their constituents, rather than thinking about holistic national objectives.