The president has stated that there are no earmarks in the the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (the "stimulus"). Technically he is correct, but practically his point is irrelevant because this bill contains the same problems as those with earmarks, lack of debate.
Earmarks are an effective means to balance power. They let weaker states bring forward issues that need to be addressed federally but never seem to have time to be addressed given all the issues that face congress. Though effective, earmarks weaken democracy because they are rarely discussed. Earmarks remove the opportunity to use debate to improve the quality of the "ask" because earmarks are often done in secret or at the last minute, but they hep build agreement for a bills overall objectives.
The stimulus is just one big behind the scenes earmark. A congresswomen told me that the bill was essentially assembled by asking each department to put together their "Wish List". These items were categorized under major headings (Health, Energy, Defense, etc), added up, and inserted into the bill. Then there was no review with committee staff, Democrat or Republican. Normally, a committee reviews these types of requests, holds hearings, and morphs the requests to align with overall objectives.
Though spending is stimulative, some things are more stimulative than others. Funding automated health records employees software engineers but lays-offs clerks. Spending more for US only steel, helps mills, but increases effective debt - putting off a time where the economy will be drained to repay for the higher costs.
One may not call these earmarks, but effectively they possess the same problem as earmarks, no review. There has been no time to review and perfect the stimulus bill so that it truly meets the president's objectives.
The president won in part because the Republicans exhibited no fiscal discipline. The American people appear to want more fiscal discipline. Rushing a bill forward appears to be good from a stimulus perspective, but that win will be short lived. Over time, the errors in the bill will become very apparent and the president will suffer a backlash.
The president did say it was important to act now to save the economy from dire outcomes (then he took a 4 day weekend without signing the stimulus, and blocked Ohare air traffic for 1 hour on a busy Friday evening). Essentially there was no time for hearings. But really, a large portion of the stimulus will not be spent until 2010. So, which is better A) rush a bill and get hit with the errors later or B) review the bill in committee and get it better up front. Or C) break the bill into $300B upfront for the shovel ready and tax breaks, and work out the balance over the next 2 months.
The truth in the end is all the errors will appear, and they will land at the president's feet. Cramming things through congress earmarks or otherwise, without debate weakens us all.
