Nodler defends record on earmarks by creating new definition of earmarks
After one of today's announcement events, newly-minted Congressional candidate Gary Nodler engaged in a bit of a back-and-forth with Chad Livengood of the News-Leader and Dave Catanese of KY3.
Livengood asked Nodler to explain how he reconciles his state senate record with his new campaign promise to refuse earmarks. Nodler, in response, defended his past support for earmarks by creating an entirely new definition of the word.
Here is part of Nodler's arrogant response to Livengood's question, via KY3 (the video of the interaction is definitely worth watching):
If you understand the political process, and understand the definition of earmark -- an earmark is an item added in a substitute on the floor of legislative body that hasn't been through the committee process...
Whether or not every candidate understands what an earmark is is another question...
The way Washington does earmarks: An earmark is an unidentified additional expenditure, added on the floor in a substitute without having gone through the process...
The irony here is that it's Gary Nodler who doesn't know what he's talking about.
An earmark does not become an earmark when it's added as a "substitute on the floor of legislative body." An earmark is an earmark because it appropriates money special project or purpose (according to Safire's Political Dictionary), and has nothing to do with where it's added in the legislative process.
Nodler's running for Congress now, so he needs to get up to speed on what the word "earmark" actually means. According to the federal Office of Management and Budget, earmarks are:
- funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or
- specifies the location or recipient, or
- otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.
Specific examples include:
- Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations or adds additional project goals) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark. However, if the additional funding is to speed up the completion of a project with no restrictions this is NOT an earmark.
- Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark.
- Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding is counted as an earmark.
The House of Representatives created a similar definition when passing earmark reform rules
[The] term "congressional earmark" means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.
No mention anywhere of earmarks only coming in substitute amendments that weren't approved by budget committees.
This isn't a defense or critique of earmarks -- when done openly and transparently for the public to see and debate, they aren't necessarily wasteful pork projects. But Noder was just wrong in what he said.
I think it was Ben Franklin who said: "Everyone is entitled to his own self-righteous campaign promises, but not his own set of self-serving definitions."
