Create a free Commercial Carrier Journal account to continue reading

A little pork can go a long way: the case FOR earmarks in transportation funding

Updated Jul 23, 2014

moneybillThere’s nothing sizzling in the frying pan to remind Congress it’s time for breakfast and to go to work, so what’s wrong with a little pork on the plate if it helps get Washington moving a transportation bill?

And suppose, just suppose, instead of the federal government’s partisan gridlock,  a little ol’ multi-year, trucking-friendly transportation bill might be the bridge, so to speak, to a fully functional Congress. (As always: Be careful what you ask for.)

It’s happened before. In fact, it used to happen regularly. And at this point we begin to discuss why earmarks, those little budget items congressmen award themselves and each other, might not be so bad after all. (The introduction to this discussion is here.)

Of course, members of Congress who favor them tend not say “earmarks,” and certainly not “pork.” The preferred term is “congressionally directed spending.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, is an unabashed supporter of bringing earmarks back. His argument: For Congress, direct spending is mandated in the Constitution (Article I). More significantly, to not exercise that authority shifts the balance of power to the White House.

And one might assume that Republicans in Congress would never voluntarily surrender a Constitutional duty to a president, and certainly not to President Obama.

Yet here’s a new video post by House Speaker John Boehner, reinforcing his opposition to earmarks with lots of action-sequence jump cuts and a dramatic score.