White House: Earmark spending is decreasing

Congress cut spending on earmarks by more than 27 percent between fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010, according to figures the Office of Management and Budget released on Monday.

Lawmakers included $11.1 billion in earmarks in fiscal 2010 appropriations measures, down from $15.2 billion in 2009, OMB said. The number of earmarks also decreased during that period, falling 17 percent from 11,124 in fiscal 2009 bills to 9,192 in 2010, the Obama administration's figures indicated.

"By any measure, the reductions we have seen this fiscal year are welcome, but we cannot rest on these laurels," OMB Director Peter R. Orszag wrote in a blog post on Monday. "Dollars must not be wasted on programs without merit or proven efficacy."

But a government watchdog group that tracks earmarks -- defined as legislative spending directed toward particular projects, companies or locations -- suggested the White House's figures are misleading partly because the comparison between fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010 is not apples to apples.

For example, the 2009 total included earmarks from a supplemental spending bill whereas the 2010 figure did not, according to the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense.

In addition, OMB included some Army Corps of Engineers earmarks in the 2009 tally but not in 2010 because President Obama moved them into his fiscal 2010 budget request, the watchdog group said. It found nearly $2.4 billion in Army Corps operations and maintenance earmarks in the president's 2010 budget request and $40 million appropriated by Congress. The group located $2.3 billion in Army Corps operations and maintenance earmarks in fiscal 2009 -- all congressional.

After adjusting for both factors, earmark spending went up slightly in fiscal 2010, according to a February Taxpayers for Common Sense analysis. Unlike the White House, the group included "undisclosed" earmarks that were not expressly identified in legislation but met its definition of a congressional earmark.

"Compared to fiscal year 2005, when we had almost $24 billion in earmarks, the trend line is down," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. But in the past year, earmark figures have stayed relatively level, he said.

During the 10-year period ending in 2005, the number of congressional earmarks skyrocketed by more than 400 percent, topping out at more than 16,000, according to the Congressional Research Service.

"This increase was particularly troubling because all too often, earmarks are an easy vehicle for special interest deal-making -- inserted into congressional spending bills without filter for merit, need, priority or any scrutiny by the public, the media or other members of Congress," Orszag wrote.

In March, the House Republican conference adopted a one-year moratorium on all earmark requests. House Democrats have supported a ban on all for-profit earmarks, many of which go to government contractors.

But Orszag indicated in the blog post that the administration preferred a different path, noting that "any earmark for a for-profit private company should be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts."

Orszag's message disappointed earmark critics. "Earmarks are designed to undercut the competitive bidding process," Ellis said. "OMB could have shown support for the House on for-profit earmarks. But they did not do that."

In response, an OMB official said Obama "has been clear that earmarks for private for-profit companies, at the very least, should be subject to competitive bid. The administration continues to encourage that, at the end of the day, Congress use this competitive-bid standard as the foundation for its efforts on these type of earmarks."

The Senate has signaled that it will continue to pursue earmarks of all kinds in the upcoming fiscal 2011 spending bills.