Jack Abramoff is having more of an impact on Washington than he could ever have imagined. In trying to distance themselves from this criminal, members of Congress have gotten themselves so badly twisted into rhetorical and procedural knots that it will take years to straighten out the mess.
First, the Republicans attacked earmarks as the embodiment of the devil. Before they could perform an exorcism, the Democrats were given control of Congress. Jumping at the chance to assume the mantle of Fiscal Responsibility, the House Democratic leadership went on a rampage about the Evils of Earmarks. They turned the misfortune of a stalemate on the fiscal 2007 appropriations bills into an unprecedented opportunity to eliminate all earmarks by handing their constitutional power over the purse to the administration of a Republican president.
Only in America would it be possible to claim victory by giving away so much power to your political adversary. For many years, Congress has been sinking to new depths of empty rhetoric uttered with the same breathless urgency of what passes for news on the cable television networks: “When we return we’ll have an exclusive report on the secret congressional earmarks that have put the nation’s economy on the verge of collapse.”
Needing someone to blame for getting them into this mess, members of Congress picked on lobbyists. Lobbyists are convenient villains because (a) we rival Congress for the bottom rung of the public opinion ladder and (b) we can’t fight back without angering the elected officials whose votes we need. So the attacks on lobbyists began. Voila! We get lobbying and ethics reforms that let members of Congress demonstrate that they have — just in time — come to the defense of Motherhood and Apple Pie. Do you think it possible that some members realized that prohibiting lobbyists from buying a $50 meal for an elected official would increase their ability to get those same lobbyists to make political contributions of $2,500 or more to have dinner or go to a rock concert with that same elected official?
The end of this ongoing episode of political theater is not in sight. In fact, we have at least one leading presidential candidate who makes sure that he uses every speech to attack the “lobbyists and special interests” that have led the country down the road to ruin. Another candidate has long been famous for attacking earmarks. Add to this pot a president who issues an executive order saying that he will veto any appropriations measure with earmarks (as he defines that term), and we have a recipe for at least another year of gridlock in the nation’s capital.
At a time when our economy is on the edge of a recession, gridlock is what the U.S. can ill afford. Perhaps sending a check to some or all taxpayers is the answer. But to this lobbyist, whose academic training was as an economist and whose life has been spent working within the political process, this handout seems like another quick fix being applied to a complex problem. Congress and the president need to spend less time spewing venom at lobbyists and earmarks and more time taking a hard look at the causes of the current economic crisis. Even more important is the need to provide the leadership and the vision to show Americans of all ages that our best days lie ahead of us.
Personally, I would like to see the federal government embark on a long-term program of investing in repairing and modernizing our infrastructure. Water is the biggest problem we face. Water supply; clean water; water treatment; water resources to move cargo, prevent flooding and reduce storm damages. It’s gratifying to see some members of Congress raising this issue in the context of economic stimulus. But they know that this is not like handing out a check. It has got to be a programmatic investment in our nation’s future.
Earmarks are not evil if their sponsors and purposes are made public and if appropriations committee aides are given the time and resources to vet each one thoroughly. Those members of Congress who abhor earmarks should propose legislative changes that take Congress back to the pre-Budget Act days of the Nixon era, when the president controlled the budget. The reforms enacted last year need to be given a chance to work before anyone considers changing them.
And while the ethics changes affecting lobbyists are not perfect either, they, too, should be given a chance to work. In the meantime, I have a slew of invitations to political fundraisers I need to sort through.
Marlowe is president of Marlowe & Company, which specializes in lobbying for local governments in Washington.
