Earmarking in Higher Education

Earmarks have received a large amount of press in the second half of 2006. Particular attention has been paid to the infamous $225 million dollar “Bridge to Nowhere”. In addition, four congressmen are being investigated, and federal prosecutors are looking into allegations that funds earmarked by lawmakers will only benefit lobbyists and political contributors. In response to these events, newly elected appropriations chairmen Byrd and Obey have come out swinging; they’ve declared “…a moratorium on all earmarks until a reformed process is put in place.” Pete Domenici, (R-NM) remarked that such a moratorium would be “unprecedented” and “unacceptable”.

President Bush also mentioned earmarks several times in his press conference on December 20, 2006, and he alluded to his willingness to cooperate with democrat initiatives as well:

“…we must work together to reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills and reform the earmark process to make it more transparent and more accountable…. The leadership in the (…) has expressed their disdain for earmarks. I support their disdain for earmarks. I don't like a process where it's not transparent, where people are able to slip this into a bill without any hearing or without any recognition of who put it in there and why they put it in there. It's not good for the system.”

It seems that President Bush supports a bipartisan effort to reduce the number of earmarks, or at least increase the transparency of these appropriations. Perhaps David Kirkpatrick made the most appropriate comment so far regarding an overhaul of earmarks:

The Democrats taking over the Congressional appropriations committees next year have boldly pledged to place a moratorium on earmarks,…But like much resolute talk in the Capitol, the declaration may not have the sweeping effect that the plan’s backers have suggested and its critics have denounced.

Kirkpatrick, David; Democrats’ Pledge to End Individual Financing of Pet Projects May Change Little; New York Times; December 23, 2006

Regardless of the outcome to the current earmark discussion, one thing is for certain: we can expect to see changes in the appropriation of funds for ‘07.

Earmarking in higher education has also been a hot topic: on July 27, 2006 Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) sent a letter to over 100 higher education institutions requesting information regarding the funding that each university received between 2000 and 2006. It seems that most universities think that Coburn should have directed his request through the appropriate house and senate channels.

In the closing paragraph to his article Academic Earmarks: The Money Schools Love to Hate that appeared in Science, on September 8, 2006 Jeffery Mervis notes:

Coburn’s aggressive campaign has angered influential senators who are also heavyweight porkers. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), chair of Senate Appropriations Committee…has so far blocked Coburn’s bid to create s publicly accessible database of Senate earmarks. And many legislators are said to be incensed that Coburn went over their heads in asking universities how they obtained specific earmarks.

Those tensions are a big reason that universities found Coburn’s letter so troublesome. “The last thing you want to do,” explains one university lobbyist, “ is to get caught in the middle of a fight between two powerful senators.”

Mervis,Jeffery ;Science Magazine, September 8, 2006; Academic Earmarks: The Money Schools Love to Hate

Regarding higher education earmarks, Mervis summarizes the confrontation between the republicans like Stevens, and the new subcommittee chairmen quite succinctly: Universities are being dragged into the middle of someone else’s fight. Is this really about getting specific financial information from the academic institutions in question? It seems obvious that business needs higher education in order to sustain a competitive work force; therefore, money put to good use in the country’s universities can hardly be deemed “wasted”. On the other hand, tax-payers do have the right to know exactly where their money is going—be it the military, higher education, infrastructure, etc.

Inside and outside higher education, earmarking has captured a great deal of public attention this year. It still remains to be seen who will line up behind Coburn and who will support Domenici.

The initiative to make appropriations more transparent is necessary, and admirable. But it doesn’t seem like Coburn will look much further into academic earmarks—rather, it seems the letter was sent to make a point: appropriation reform is necessary, and Coburn is ready to roll up his sleeves.

Want to learn more about Enrollment Management? Click here to sign up for the Innovation Ads Enrollment Management Whitepaper. 

Sources-

Egan, Timothy; Pork No Longer Paves the Road to Re-election; New York Times, December 25, 2006

Hulse, Carl; Congressional Memo; Foe of Earmarks Has a Pet Cause of His Own; New York Times, February 18, 2006

Kirkpatrick, David; Democrats’ Pledge to End Individual Financing of Pet Projects May Change Little; New York Times; December 23, 2006

Mervis,Jeffery; Academic Earmarks: The Money Schools Love to Hate; ;Science Magazine, September 8, 2006

Mullins, Brody; As Earmarked Funding Swells, Some Recipients Don’t Want It; The Wall Street Journal, December 26, 2006