The Morning Dispatch: Democrats Bring Earmarks Back

Will it provide incentive to pass appropriations bills or instead invite corruption?

(Photograph by Brandon Bell/Getty Images.)

Happy Tuesday! Let’s get right to it.

Quick Hits: Today’s Top Stories

  • Snow, freezing temperatures, and sweeping power outages have clobbered Texas and Louisiana in recent days as Winter Storm Uri tears through parts of the southern United States. More than 3.6 million Texas households remained without power last night, and at least six people have been hospitalized due to weather-related accidents.
  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced plans on Monday to establish “an outside, independent 9/11-type Commission” to probe the “facts and causes” behind the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
  • The World Health Organization granted the AstraZeneca/Oxford COVID-19 vaccine emergency authorization yesterday, allowing U.N.-backed agencies to disperse the comparatively inexpensive and easy to store vaccine to developing nations around the world.
  • New data from Israel’s mass vaccination program have thus far proven to be consistent with Pfizer clinical trials, showing a 94 percent drop in symptomatic COVID-19 infections and a 92 percent drop in severe illness among the 600,000 people who received both doses.
  • The United States confirmed 53,235 new cases of COVID-19 yesterday per the Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 Dashboard, with 4.6 percent of the 1,154,871 tests reported coming back positive. An additional 984 deaths were attributed to the virus on Monday, bringing the pandemic’s American death toll to 486,316. According to the COVID Tracking Project, 65,455 Americans are currently hospitalized with COVID-19. The Centers for Disease Control did not update its vaccine data yesterday.

Democrats to Reinstate Earmarks

In the early aughts, congressional leaders used earmarks—also known as “pork barrel” or “congressionally directed” spending—as a tool to get rank-and-file members on board with yearly appropriations bills.

The deal-making calculus was simple: In exchange for a particular lawmaker’s vote on a piece of legislation, Appropriations Committee leaders would insert some funding for that lawmaker’s home district—i.e. a fancy new bridge, community center, or post office—into the bill’s fine print.

Until about a decade ago, members of Congress made regular use of the process to deliver tangible results for their constituents at home. See that bridge? I got you that bridge.

But the Tea Party movement of 2009 and 2010 ushered a wave of fiscal austerity into Congress, and House Republicans—led by then-Speaker John Boehner—banned earmarks for the 112th Congress, citing various corruption scandals and growing deficits. “This earmark ban shows the American people we are listening and we are dead serious about ending business as usual in Washington,” Boehner said at the time.

President Obama backed the ban, and eventually got Senate Democrats on board as well. “Earmarks … represent a relatively small part of overall federal spending,” Obama said. “But when it comes to signaling our commitment to fiscal responsibility, addressing them would have an important impact.”

In the early months of the Trump administration, some Republican lawmakers sought to revive the practice, leading the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner to label earmarks the “Freddy Krueger” of federal spending. Then-House Speaker Paul Ryan quashed the idea before it gained momentum.

But Democrats have unified control of Washington once again, and earmarks could prove useful to party leaders hoping to wrangle incredibly narrow majorities in both chambers. Yesterday, spokespeople for Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Sen. Patrick Leahy—the new chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, respectively—made clear the practice would be returning.

Punchbowl News, which first reported the story in its Monday morning newsletter, laid out how it will look, and what limitations Democrats plan to put in place:

Democrats say they will be transparent and disclose the details of each earmark — who requested it, and which entity would get the money. Members cannot request earmarks for entities to which they have financial ties. And Congress will not allow earmarks for for-profit institutions, such as private companies. Earmarks will be limited to state and local governments and nonprofits that carry out quasi-government functions. There will be limits on how much of each spending bill can be allocated toward earmarks.

The move is not particularly surprising—Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer hinted last November that earmarks would be returning in the new Congress—but it’ll certainly shake things up on Capitol Hill.

Worth Your Time

  • Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell argues that while “there is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility” for the assault on the Capitol January 6, given “the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone,” senators’ first duty is to the Constitution. McConnell acknowledges that many “brilliant” constitutional scholars believe it’s permissible  to convict onetime officeholders even after they’ve left their office, others don’t—and McConnell agrees with the latter. To rush a trial before Trump left office, he insists, would have made a mockery of the processes and norms that Trump critics held sacrosanct when they frequently criticized the former president’s behavior.
  • It’s one thing to understand at a conceptual level the online forces and psychological needs that have led so many Americans to embrace cultlike conspiracy theories such as QAnon in recent years. It’s another to read the stories of those caught in the wreckage of the lives of those who have poured themselves into these communities, becoming increasingly dead to the real world in the process. This crushing Huffington Post profile tells the stories of several (adult) children of QAnon devotees, and the damage these online fictions have done to their families: “It’s hard to even talk about this because it’s just so ridiculous. You don’t want to believe that someone you love is this disconnected from reality.”
  • During the Trump era, evangelical writer and radio host Eric Metaxas underwent a slow metamorphosis from thoughtful critic and writer to bomb-throwing #MAGA superfan, eventually becoming one of the most prominent evangelical voices in the “Stop the Steal” movement. The Atlantic’s Emma Green caught up with Metaxas for an interview this week, offering a glimpse of the sort of mental calisthenics required to hold such seemingly incompatible positions at once: “I think it’s very possible [Trump] was reelected, yeah. And that sickens me, that I could even think that … A lot of courts didn’t look at the evidence, because they made a call, which was actually a political call, to say, ‘We just don’t want to stick our necks out like this.’” But what about the Trump-appointed judges who rejected the notion that such evidence existed? “I’m not the sort of person who followed this the way you did. Most Americans have less time to follow it than I did. And so if there is the impression that some of what I’m saying is true, people need to deal with that. In America, we don’t push that stuff aside.”

Presented Without Comment

Also Presented Without Comment

Andrew Desiderio @AndrewDesiderio

Ron Johnson slams McConnell for his remarks on Saturday criticizing Trump, saying his view doesn’t represent the Senate GOP conference. “He has to realize, what he says on our leader reflects on us.”

Jessie Opoien @jessieopie

Ron Johnson on WISN radio: “The fact of the matter is this didn’t seem like an armed insurrection to me.” https://t.co/CjL7S62mP0

Also Also Presented Without Comment

Toeing the Company Line

  • The Supreme Court on Thursday granted Alabama death row inmate Willie Smith’s request to have his pastor present at his execution, rejecting the state’s claim that having a spiritual adviser present would interfere with prison security. Tune in to the latest episode of Advisory Opinions for a discussion about how the Supreme Court’s religious liberty ruling in Dunn v. Smith might affect future death penalty cases. David and Sarah also chat about Yuval Levin’s latest piece in National Reviewon the sorry state of Congress and the New York Times’ 2020 Hulu documentary about Britney Spears.
  • In this week’s Uphill, Haley breaks down the aftermath of Trump’s second acquittal and looks at the possibility of an independent commission to investigate the January 6 assault on the Capitol. She then dives into the weeds of a regular congressional squabble that may rear its head again this year: whether America should revise or revoke the early-2000s authorizations for the use of military force that have governed various U.S. military operations around the globe for the past two decades. The authorizations have been stretched far beyond their original scope, but many lawmakers find it easier to keep kicking the can down the road: “Members of Congress don’t particularly want to have to take an affirmative vote authorizing military force. As with many policy areas, especially one as controversial as this, many in the legislative branch would rather leave these questions up to the president.”

Reporting by Declan Garvey (@declanpgarvey), Andrew Egger (@EggerDC), Haley Byrd Wilt (@byrdinator), Audrey Fahlberg (@FahlOutBerg), Charlotte Lawson (@charlotteUVA), and Steve Hayes (@stephenfhayes).