How does Congress make a budget without earmarks?

"The fact that Congress remains a spending disagreement or two away from shutting down the government no doubt strikes some as remarkable. But there is another extraordinary aspect to the fiscal clash unfolding on Capitol Hill: earmarks have disappeared from the budgetary landscape."

Carl Hulse of the NYT has more here. 

"As GOP slashes budget, lawmakers who built careers on earmarks must re-brand"

"Lawmakers have long seen themselves in part as human funnels whose primary job is to bring home federal money. Now, the GOP wants its members to define themselves by what they can reduce, defund or terminate."

The WaPo has more here. 

"Earmark Idiocy"

"I'd assumed that an earmark is a one-off, piddly program some Congressperson wants for his or her district--the glockenspiel hall of fame, or whatever. These don't amount to very much cash--and a great many of them are entirely worthwhile: a new wing for the local hospital, a new lab at the state university--but John McCain and others have had a great deal of fun over the years ridiculing the bridges to nowhere and the grants for the study of crab sexuality. This year, in the full-blown heat of our deficit-cutting passion, both Congress and the President have decided to swear off them." 


Joe Klein, writing in Time, has more here. 

"Federal earmark freeze chills local funding requests: Pajaro Valley water agency seeks to tap new federal funding source"

"Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency leaders are waiting for a $13.6 million federal reimbursement for construction of a wastewater treatment plant. The check is not in the mail - and it may never come.
The funding, authorized by Congress but not appropriated, is hung up in the federal spending debate. Millions of dollars for other Santa Cruz County projects - from Pajaro River levee improvements and rail line repairs to a Dominican Hospital program aimed at at-risk births and a wetlands education program based at Pajaro Valley High School - are also in jeopardy due to a freeze on the controversial appropriation system known as earmarks."

The Mercury News has more here. 

"At CPAC, Indiana Gov. Daniels looks at 2012 and decries a 'new red menace'"

WaPo has more here.

"Daniels said an 'obese federal government' needs bariatric surgery, not just behavior modification. He dismissed the focus in Washington on eliminating earmarks as necessary but wholly inadequate - 'a trifle,' he called it. 'Talking much more about [earmarks] or 'waste, fraud and abuse' trivializes what needs to be done and misleads our fellow citizens to believe that easy answers are available to us,' he said."

"Lobby shop tells lawmakers: Shift from earmarks to grants"

The Hill has this report.

"One of Washington’s premier appropriations lobby shops is circulating a report on Capitol Hill that lays out how lawmakers can shift federal spending from earmarks to grants."

"Katrina, Bridge to Nowhere spurred ‘storm’ that doomed earmarks"

The Boston Herald has this report.

"It may have looked like boom times for earmarkers in 2006, when they carved out a record $29 billion in projects -- but little did lawmakers realize that a perfect storm of events the year before had set the clock ticking on pork."

"Earmark Loopholes, Energy Standards in Flux and More In Capital Eye Opener"

The Center for Responsive Politics has more here.

"Wonkbook: The best story you'll read on earmarks"

The Washington Post has more here.

Ezra Klein writes on all things earmark-related.

"FAA bill full of politics as usual"

More here from Politico.

"Earmarks might be on the outs in Washington, but the first bill on the Senate floor since Democrats reluctantly embraced an earmark ban is still chock-full of expensive aviation pet projects that lawmakers are eager to defend for their voters back home."

"Military spending will thwart earmark ban, experts predict"

More here from the Hill.

"Defense budget experts say the campaign to banish earmarks from Congress is unlikely to succeed because lawmakers will find other ways to direct money to military projects in their districts."

"Senators seek to recoup ‘orphaned earmarks’"

The Hill has this report.

"A bipartisan team of senators introduced legislation Monday to rescind funds for so-called 'orphaned earmarks.'
The legislation offered by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) would retract earmarks that remain 90 percent or more unused nine years after funds have first been appropriated. Recovered funds would be used to reduce the nation’s deficit."

Former Senator says earmark ban is about scoring political points

The National Journal has this report.

"Speaking as freely as only an ex-politician can, former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson on Sunday accused today's Congress of scoring cheap political points to prolong their own careers instead of hunkering down to cut the deficit."

Where did all the earmarks go?

The NYT has more here.

File this under the category of "be careful what you wish for."

"The projects have drawn strong support from community activists, business leaders and local politicians of both major parties. But the stream of federal money that has long financed such projects, in this Hudson Valley district and elsewhere in the nation, is about to dry up.

And some residents of the district may be surprised to learn who one of the main instigators is: Nan Hayworth, the district’s new representative, who was swept into office last fall along with other Tea Party-backed candidates bent on changing Washington’s ways."

"Nelson's resolution shifts earmark savings to deficit reduction"

The Hill has more here.

"Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) has introduced a sense of the Senate resolution that would use funds saved from an earmark moratorium to reduce the national debt."

"Reid may seek earmarks in 2012"

Politico has this report.

Here is an excerpt:

"It turns out Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may seek earmarks next year, after all.

Speaking to reporters Thursday in the Capitol, Reid responded to the earmark ban announced by the Senate Appropriations Committee this week, saying it amounts to a 'one-year moratorium' necessary to 'get the appropriations bills done, and with [President Barack Obama’s veto threat] hanging over, we can’t get them done,' he said."