House Democrats are planning to revive earmarking, a process that will allow legislators to direct federal spending to their districts. They see it as a potential means to push policies forward, but earmarks also come with a baggage of concerns. We discuss the history and ethics of earmarking, and whether it can help break the gridlock in Congress.
Guests
Jeffrey Lazarus, professor of political science at Georgia State University. (@jlazarus001)
William Glaston, senior fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies Program. (@BillGalston)
Also Featured
Marcus Stern, retired journalist who was part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning team that broke the Randy “Duke” Cunningham story for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
From The Reading List
Washington Post: “Democrats are bringing earmarks back. Aren’t earmarks bad?” — “Now that Democrats control the House and Senate, they plan to revive earmarking — a process by which legislators can direct federal spending to their home districts.”
Politico: “Hoyer: ‘Bipartisan’ earmarks comeback in the offing” — “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer privately told Democrats on Tuesday that earmarks will be revived this Congress and that he can “guarantee” the effort “will be bipartisan,” according to two people on the call.”
The Conversation: “The ‘gateway drug to corruption and overspending’ is returning to Congress – but are earmarks really that bad?” — “Congressional earmarks – otherwise known as “pork barrel spending” – may be coming back.”