Labeling earmarks in state budget

Posted on Fri, Nov. 30, 2007
By MICHAEL D. THOMPSON - Guest columnist

In his 2003 book, Breach of Trust, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn writes: “Power is like morphine. It dulls the senses, impairs judgment and leads politicians to make choices that damage their own character and the machinery of Democracy.”

Sadly, when it comes to spending your tax dollars, our national leaders have been on a steady “morphine drip” in recent years.

In Washington, Republicans grew the national debt by $3 trillion from 2000 to 2006, losing any shred of fiscal conservative credibility in addition to their control of Congress. According to a poll taken shortly after the 2006 elections, 40 percent of Americans believed that Republicans were the party of “big government” — a number surprising only because it wasn’t higher.

At the heart of these troubling developments is a fundamentally flawed process. I believe changing this process is the first step in restoring Republican credibility.

To his credit, our own Sen. Jim DeMint is leading the way in Washington to change what he calls the “culture of how we spend America’s money.” Earlier this year Sen. DeMint offered a bill that would force legislators to put their names on spending requests that have been historically slipped into massive budget bills at the last minute. Sen. DeMint calls these million-dollar pork projects “earmarks.”

I call them budget-busters, which is why this year I am filing legislation in Columbia to bring this type of secret spending out in the open at the state level.

Not only will my bill require individual legislators to put their names on specific spending requests, it will require the sub-committee and committee chairmen who approve these requests to attach their names to the individual spending items too.

Additionally, unlike our current system, no spending item would be approved without the opportunity for a full and open debate in both chambers. Simply put, if a state legislator wants money for a pet project, he or she would be required to stand up in front of the Legislature and justify the expenditure on its merits.

My bill would also eliminate the so-called “competitive grants” program. Created in conjunction with the executive branch, this system was intended to foster economic development. This $46 million program has instead become a slush fund for projects that have very little to do with economic development in our state. This is why I supported the governor when he vetoed the millions of dollars for this program.

Here is my concern: Given the uncertainly of our state’s economy, can we adequately support the core services of government if we are wasting millions of dollars on nonessential programs that are slipped into our appropriations bills?

Republicans have a simple choice when we reconvene in January — we can either heed the warnings of the 2006 congressional elections and insist on reforms to streamline our spending practices, or face extinction as this state’s majority party.

Rep. Thompson represents Anderson County in the S.C. House.