RI Could Lose Millions in Federal Earmark Ban
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Millions of dollars in federal funding for roads and bridges, schools, economic development, and nonprofit programs in Rhode Island is at risk if a proposed ban on earmarks takes effect next year under a GOP-controlled U.S. House.
A spokesman for U.S. Senator Jack Reed, D-RI, warned that a loss or reduction of earmarks would hurt the state. “It could cost Rhode Island jobs, degrade our infrastructure, and make it more difficult for Rhode Island to compete for federal dollars,” said spokesman Chip Unruh.
In 2010, the Ocean State received 98 earmarks totaling $83.3 million, according to data GoLocalProv obtained from Taxpayers for Common Sense. Unlike regular appropriations, earmarks—sometimes referred to as "pork-barrel spending"—are tagged onto spending bills by individual lawmakers and usually targeted toward specific projects or organizations in their districts or states.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTNext year, however, Republican leaders in the U.S. House have promised to abolish—or at least severely curtail—the practice. “At a minimum, there should be an enormous reduction,” said Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation. “There’s an outside chance there could be zero.”
Rhode Island stands to lose more than other states. While the Ocean State was at the bottom of the list in terms of total earmarked funding it received in 2010, it ranked as ninth on a per capita basis, receiving $79.13 per resident. (See below chart.)
Congressman-elect David Cicilline told GoLocalProv that as a mayor he had seen first-hand the importance of earmarked funding to improving everything from schools, roads, bridges, and public safety to creating more jobs. “I would certainly fight and intend to fight hard to bring these investments back to the district,” Cicilline said.
Earmarks go to Special Olympics, Free Clinic
In 2010, Special Olympics Rhode Island used a $200,000 earmark to help fund its summer games—an event attended by 2,000 athletes. The Rhode Island Free Clinic is using a $100,000 earmark to help cover the salaries of nearly half of its small staff. The Pawtucket Public Library drew upon $243,000 for the upkeep of its two historic buildings. And the state Economic Development Corporation received $500,000 for job training, according to a database of earmarks maintained by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
In Providence alone, earmarks have gone towards new classrooms and a dining hall at Amos House, the expansion of the city’s Emergency Operations Center, the Police Department’s gun task force and gang intervention program, and the Providence After-School Alliance.
A large share of earmarked funding has gone towards transportation projects. In Providence, $1.47 million in earmarks funded the relocation of Interstate 195, according to Karen Watts, spokeswoman for the mayor’s office. And, over the years, Sen. Reed has secured $55 million in earmarked funding for improvements to freight rail service and an expansion of commuter rail in the state, according to Unruh.
“During these difficult times, a loss of any funding for Rhode Island is unfortunate,” said Joy Fox, spokeswoman for Congressman Jim Langevin. Like Cicilline, she said Langevin would continue to press for federal funds for projects in his district.
Officials with the Special Olympics and the Rhode Island Free Clinic told GoLocalProv that federal earmarks were a vital funding source. Dennis DeJesus, executive director of the Special Olympics, said his organization approached Congressman Patrick Kennedy about getting an earmark after donations and sponsorships dried up during the recession.
Marie Ghazal, CEO of the Rhode Island Free Clinic, said the earmarks will help it continue to handle an estimated 6,700 visits a year from uninsured Rhode Islanders. She rejected the notion that earmarks are wasteful, pork-barrel spending. “It’s not really pork when it comes to the Free Clinic because we provide everything for free,” Ghazal told GoLocalProv.
Debate over earmarks heats up
Franc described earmarks as an abuse of Congress’ power to appropriate money. He also said earmarks have not worked in reviving the economic fortunes of regions that receive the most in funding. “The places that are inundated and immersed in earmarks don’t do well. It doesn’t pull them up,” Franc said.
He said local communities, nonprofits, and other organizations that receive earmarks should seek federal funds through a competitive application process. Asked what he would say to organizations like the Free Clinic or the Special Olympics that could lose federal funding as a result, Franc responded: “The same thing I would say to the other 15,000 nonprofits that did not get earmark—when you’re getting rid of earmarks you level the playing field.”
Cicilline told GoLocalProv he opposes getting rid of earmarks. Instead, he says the process of attached earmarks to spending bills should be made more transparent to the public and more accountable. “What most people don’t want is waste—‘bridges to nowhere,’ wasteful federal spending, or lack of accountability,” Cicilline said.
Even without a ban, RI could lose money
As a caucus, House Republicans have already pledged to abstain from earmarks. Once they assume control over the House next year, experts told GoLocalProv they are confident that the new House leadership won’t allow earmarks. The Senate, however, will be a different story, since Democrats remain in control. That means that any earmarks Rhode Island’s Senators—Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse—propose will have to make it through conference process between the two chambers.
Wendy Schiller, a Brown University professor of political science, said an earmarks ban will probably not pass in the Senate next year. “Even if it does pass and the President signs it, it can be challenged in court as unconstitutional because Congress cannot limit its own power to appropriate,” Schiller said. “I am not sure anyone will make that argument though. No reason why Obama won’t sign it—presidents rarely get any credit for earmarked spending.”
Rhode Island has benefited in the past by having Kennedy sit on the House Appropriations Committee and Reed serve on the same committee in the Senate.
But now, even without a ban, the absence of Kennedy—combined with Republican control over the U.S. House—will make it more difficult for Rhode Island to get earmarks, according to Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor at The Cook Political Report. “Obviously, unless Cicilline gets a seat on Appropriations, which would seem unlikely, Reed’s ability to direct as much money to the state will be limited with or without a ban on earmarks,” Duffy said.
Related Articles
- Will Rhode Island Lead a Revolt Against Special Interest Money in Congress?
- Will Term Limits Fix Congress?
