Quote of the day: Hear that thump-thump-thump? Could it be the sound of "other shoes" dropping as the Democrats prepare to take over Congress?

Senators Stevens and Inouye, outgoing and incoming chairmen of the defense appropriations subcommittee

"I don't see any monumental changes. If something is wrong [with the earmarks system] we should clean house, but if they can explain it and justify it, I will look at it."
--Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), incoming chairman of the Senate's defense appropriations subcommittee, to the New York Times's David D. Kirkpatrick, in "As Power Shifts in Congress, Pork May Linger"

Senator Inouye, you see, takes over from Sen. Ted "I'm the Chairman, So Shut Your Face" Stevens (R-Alaska) as chairman of the Senate subommittee that oversees defense appropriations. Inouye and Stevens, Kirkpatrick writes,

are the best of friends in the Senate, so close they call each other brother. Both are decorated veterans of World War II. They have worked together for nearly four decades as senators from the two youngest and farthest-flung states. And they share an almost unrivaled appetite for what some call political pork.

Mr. Stevens, an 83-year-old Republican, and Mr. Inouye, an 82-year-old Democrat, routinely deliver to their states more money per capita in earmarks--the pet projects lawmakers insert into major spending bills--than any other state gets. This year, Alaska received $1.05 billion in earmarks, or $1,677.27 per resident, while Hawaii got $903.9 million, or $746.05 per resident, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group that tracks such figures.

"Meet the new cardinals, as the chairmen of the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees are known on Capitol Hill," writes Kirkpatrick.

Many have a lot in common with the Republicans they will succeed. All have worked for years to climb to their posts, where the authority to grant earmarks puts them among the most powerful lawmakers in Congress. Like Mr. Inouye and Mr. Stevens, many have developed unusual bipartisan camaraderie while divvying up projects. By longstanding, informal agreement, the majority typically doles out about 60 percent of the money for earmarks and lets the minority pass out the rest. And they form a united front against limitations on the earmark process.

“What is good for the goose is good for the gander," Senator Patty Murray, the Washington Democrat who is set to become chairwoman of the transportation subcommittee, said last fall in a speech defending an Alaska Republican's allocation of more than $200 million in federal money for a bridge to remote Gravina, Alaska, with a population of 50. It became notorious as the “Bridge to Nowhere."

Now, there are some crucial distinctions to be made here. "Pork"--a senator or representative's "bringing home the bacon" to his/her home state or district--is one thing. Not only is that not going to disappear, it probably shouldn't. Members of Congress, after all, are supposed to promote the interests of their constituents. Of course, we'd like to think that they also feel a responsibility to the welfare of the country as a whole, but this is an issue for another time. It really isn't the issue where earmarks are concerned.

Oh, it can be a delicate distinction, at least at the outset. As legislators become better at delivering pork to their states or districts, it starts to shade from "constituent service" into federal financing of their reelection campaigns. (My goodness, is it possible that we already have federal financing of campaigns? Well, at least where canny incumbents are concerned, you bet.)

The next step is the creepy one, though--when money begins to change hands for purposes other than the welfare of the legislators' constituents. The federal spending, after all, goes to people, and one thing we should have learned by now is that where there's money flowing, or even trickling, people are drawn to it like magnets trying to get their mitts on as much of it as they can grab off.

I suppose it started with honest businesspeople in senators' states and representatives' districts understandably directing their political contributions to candidates who showed the interest and ability to extract money from Congress for projects back home that had the happy result of putting government money in the contributor's coffers. And once this process takes hold, it is likely to escalate to the limit of the participants' consciences, or sense of shame, or fear of getting caught.

One of the great achievements of the Republican congresses during the GWB presidency has been the final stripping away of all conscience, shame and even fear of getting caught. As Kirkpatrick reminds us:

Earmarks became associated with corruption in Congress because of their role in bribery scandals involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randy Cunningham of California. But the number and cost of such projects has soared for years. The Congressional Research Service found that over the last 12 years, the number of earmarks had tripled to 16,000, worth $64 billion a year. Critics argue that the system fosters waste and cronyism by allowing individual lawmakers to direct federal money to pet projects with little vetting or oversight, often anonymously.

Longtime DWT readers are familiar with the way the most unabashedly corrupt GOP committee and subcommittee chairmen have used their positions controlling the valves on those giant money pipes to enrich themselves and their loved ones, cronies and just plain bribers. They have lots of ways of diverting a torrent of that cash flow into their money ponds, but earmarks have become one of the nifties. The dead-of-night stealth with which they're often inserted in legislation, along with the anonymity the perpetrators freely maintain, tells us all we need to know about the intentions of the earmarkers.

Or does it?

“I happen to be a supporter of earmarks, unabashedly," said Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, the Democrat set to become chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for labor, health and human services. “But I don't call them earmarks. It is ‘Congressional directed funding.' "

Fourteen years ago, Mr. Harkin recalled, he started the practice of directing millions of dollars in defense spending each year toward breast cancer research. “Now, was that bad?" Mr. Harkin asked. “If you left it to the Defense Department, they never would have done it."

What can one say except that Senator Harkin is a smart guy--too smart, really, to expect us to swallow this bilge? Former California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham isn't in the slammer for supporting breast-cancer research. Ditto former Ohio Rep. Bob Ney, awaiting his departure for the Big House--not to mention those California cuties (and perennial DWT faves) Reps. Jerry Lewis, John Doolittle and Duncan Hunter. The sounds they are hearing is the heavy-breathing plodding of slow-moving (Republican) prosecutors advancing on them from behind, and finally closing in.

Reporter Kirkpatrick makes his case that the soon-to-be Democratic "cardinals," as ranking minority members of the committees and subcommittees they are about to take over, understand only too well how the system is played. It would be nice if the leadership in both houses of Congress created new sets of rules that helped all members focus on the public good in the appropriation of money. It looks, though, as if we're going to have to depend on the consciences of the new cardinals.

Kirkpatrick's NYT article concludes:

Ms. Murray, the Washington Democrat, said her party would take a less political approach to earmarks than the Republicans did. She said Republicans had bribed lawmakers with earmarks to persuade them to vote for barebones domestic spending bills. “They stuffed them with earmarks to buy votes," she said. “We are not going to do that."

Still, in an interview with The Honolulu Advertiser the day after the election, Mr. Inouye said he and Mr. Stevens did not plan to rock the boat. “I had a chat with Senator Stevens before the election," Mr. Inouye said. “We pledged to each other that no matter what happens, we will continue with our tested system of bipartisanship, and we've been doing this for the past 25 years, and it's worked."

Uh-oh, was that another thump I just heard?