Pork Barrel Spending and Incumbency

This article from the Washington Times “Voters may be fed up with congressional pork: Many earmarkers now tagged for ouster.” (written before the election) argues that voters may be becoming wise to the real costs of pork barrel spending and that there may be a burgeoning public backlash against earmarking As evidence they cite several examples of long-serving incumbents in both the house and senate on the appropriations and budget committees, who have successfully funneled federal funds to their district in the past but whose reelection is still in danger, or who have failed to win their party’s primary. “Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, an appropriations committee veteran who hails from one of the most pork-barrel-friendly states - West Virginia - couldn't keep his job, losing last week in his state's Democratic primary.” They also explain the large number of retirements this year from members of the appropriations committee as a sign that they would not be able to be reelected if they ran. The article quotes Mike Connolly, a spokesman from the Club for Growth, a conservative group that argues for decreased government spending, “the American people are figuring out that, while they're getting a little bit for their state, they also know that they're paying for the stuff in the other 49 [states], too." I think the argument the article makes that backlash against earmarks can explain anti-incumbent sentiment in the upcoming election is weak. Many other factors can explain it but I don’t think there is any reason to believe that voters are becoming any more enlightened about the way in which congress operates. If representatives always vote with their districts economic interests this is because their constituent also always vote with their own economic interests, and if this means pet projects for their state or district they are unlikely to object. In the case of this election perceived potential costs of health care reform, or the stimulus, or the budget deficit may have outweighed the advantage of having an incumbent who is able to send federal dollars their way. But this does not mean there is any systematic change in the relationship between voters and their representatives, or that the incumbency advantage offered by the committee system is likely to decrease in the long-run.

John Boehner, 61st Speaker of the United States House of Committees.

Following this month's midterm elections, the predictions and opinions about what is to come of it are rolling out like Model Ts from Highland Park. This piece by Bruce Bartlett is interesting because of its relevance to our discussion about the Committee System.

Bartlett highlights the prominence of the Committee System in lawmaking and sees it as coming very much to the forefront under new republican leadership - especially as opposed to its diminished role under Newt Gingrich's Republican congress. He does not think that House Minority Leader John Boehner (should he be elected Speaker in January) will be able to be as heavy handed as Gingrich was when he took much of the Committee System's clout after powering the Republicans to victory with his unique strategy.

Bartlett further offers this resurgence of the Committees as one in a series of reasons to fear for the real effectiveness of the newly elected legislators. This is a legitimate concern whenever different parties hold the executive and legislative branches, but Bartlett sees the enthusiasm of republican Committee Chairs-to-be as but one of a several issues specific to the 112th Congress. As we have learned, an increase in the strength of the Committee System will help congressman to serve their own and their electorate's interests and therefore gain re-election. It is however, as Bartlett proposes, unlikely to help the Republican Majority as a whole really take control and accomplish what it sets out to.

Committee Shakeup

This article discusses the process that is about to take place with the Republicans getting a majority in the House of Representatives. Seats in the committees will be turning over and new Republican committee chairmen will take over. GOP leaders are excited because this means that they will be able to have more of a say in what happens within the committees. The new committee members and chairs will not be finalized until January but the article profiles some people who are in the running for each new position.

One of the possible committee leaders profiled is Frank Lucas from a district in rural Oklahoma. He is on the Committee of Agriculture and was born and raised on his family’s farm. Texans who support the oil and gas industry are looking to head both the Science and Technology and the Energy and Commerce committees. Jeff Miller, a representative from the Florida Panhandle is in the running to head the Veterans Affairs committee. He has a large veteran population in his district.

The take away point from this article fits with one of the main points of the Weingast and Marshall paper: Committee members chose their committees based on the interests that are closest to them and their constituents. The committees act as a form of property rights, so when representatives join a committee they sacrifice their rights in all other categories except for the one that means the most to them. In addition to this, the party in power also has incentives to put the representatives on the committees that they desire if possible. The congressmen named in this article as potential leaders of their committees demonstrate this principle. They are probably representative of the other members of their committee.