The pledge to abstain from earmarks made on the campaign trail is proving more complicated in practice.
Some senators' resolve is being tested as two of the nation's major ports, Savannah, GA and Charleston, S.C., urgently seek funding to expand. Port officials say federal dollars will be crucial next year so they can deepen their harbors to accommodate bigger ships after the Panama Canal is widened and reopens in 2014.
It isn't clear that can be done without earmarking—special funding that lawmakers request for projects in their home states.
The Savannah port is seeking $105 million for the upcoming fiscal year to begin dredging the port, while Charleston wants $400,000 for a feasibility study for its own deepening project. If the ports cannot receive the mega-ships, Savannah and Charleston officials say, the cargo will go to New York or Norfolk, Va., which they argue would be inefficient and deliver an economic blow to the Southeast, costing jobs.
Spending on items such as ports, bridges and roads are included in the president's annual budget, which is then reviewed by congressional committees. It's at that point that lawmakers often go to a committee chairman to get their earmarked projects inserted. Individual projects could also be funded in free-standing bills, but that would be impractical, given how numerous such projects are.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) supports the earmark ban but has vowed to earmark funds for the Charleston port if necessary. "I'm in a spot where I have to get the port deepened for economic reasons," he said.
Democrats from the region say the ban never made any sense. "Charleston is going to be dead in the water because of this short-sighted myopic view that seems to be controlling," said Rep. James Clyburn (D., S.C.).
Savannah, the second-busiest port on the East Coast after the Port of New York/New Jersey, has been pressing an application with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers since 1999 to dredge the Savannah River from its current 42-feet depth at low tide to 48 feet. This month, the Corps recommended dredging to 47 feet. The cost has been estimated at about $600 million—$400 million of which would be sought in federal funds.
Curtis Foltz, executive director of the Georgia Ports Authority, said in an interview that he and other officials had visited Washington repeatedly to lobby the White House and the state's congressional delegation. Having no port for large ships in the Southeast would increase the cost of transporting imported and exported goods from one of the fastest-growing parts of the nation, he said.
Georgia's Republican senators are touting their opposition to earmarks but also suggesting they'll do whatever it takes for the port. "My position has consistently been, I'm going to support reform or total elimination of earmarks," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.). "But if a project is vital to the economy and jobs of my state, I'm sent here by the people of my state to make sure their interests are looked after."
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.), who also supported the ban, said he would "continue to fight for funding for projects such as the expansion of the Savannah port that is critical to my state and to U.S. trade."
The Charleston port, like its counterpart in Savannah, is a major driver of its state's economy. Charleston officials are planning a new terminal by 2016 that will boost the port's container capacity by 50%. They also want to deepen the port—the East Coast's fourth-largest—by five feet to 50 feet.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), one of the Senate's foremost earmark opponents and the force behind the ban, does not intend to make an exception for Charleston, a stance that has attracted praise from fiscal conservatives but some heat at home. Mr. DeMint said he strongly supported the port, but that the earmark system had not helped it.
Port projects are handled by the Army Corps, whose budget is largely driven by earmarks. Mr. DeMint has proposed a merit-based system under which a commission would determine which Corps projects receive priority.
QUESTION: Expanding the ports in Charleston and Savannah may require expending considerable political capital. With limited dollars and many politicians pledging to forgo earmarks, what does this mean for JaxPort expansion? Will JaxPort be able to compete effectively with other ports in the Southeast in the future?
Read the full Wall Street Journal article, "Projects Test Resolve on Earmarks" by Cameron McWhirter and Naftali Bendavid
The pledge to ban congressional earmarks was largely political posturing by candidates, or their supporters, for election purposes. Many who made the ban a central part of their campaigns have already begun waffling on the issue. Most of the elected officials are more interested in reelection than making difficult decisions. Thus, it is not likely that earmarks will go away. Even if earmarks are banned, Georgia and South Carolina have representation with the clout to push through special legislation for funding for port expansion. If this does happen, it is possible that funding for Jacksonville port expansion could be attached to the bills. Such legislation can be sold as a necessity to grow the economy.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the foregoing, a bit of federal austerity may be on the horizon. Given that possibility, economic planners in Northeast Florida should not rely on port expansion to be the centerpiece of economic growth in the region. This seems to underscore the importance of having an economic development plan that emphasizes diversity. A diversified economy that capitalizes on long-term growth opportunities is a sound approach that will be less vulnerable to future economic downturns.