Despite the Pledge for America , I am not in the least convinced that Congressional Republicans have learned their lesson.  Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) continues to defend earmarks, stating that they are a form of “direct democracy” and that “members know better than the bureaucracy does on what the real priorities are for taxpayers’ money.”  (“As republicans Eye Majority, They Splinter on Earmarks,” Sept. 24, 2010 at A-4)  A greater nonsequitur is hardly imaginable.  The statement is sophistic in at least two significant respects.

First, the Constitution sets the rules and requires legislation, including spending, to be approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.  Although technically earmarks may meet that requirement insofar as they are inserted into larger bills that members vote on, they clearly do not conform to the spirit of constitutional rules because they are not debated on the floor.

Second, the alternative to earmarks is not dispensing with members deciding what is best for their constituents and replacing it with the bureaucracy determining priorities.  Rather, the alternatives are between Jerry Lewis single-handedly appropriating taxpayer money to his district versus allowing the representatives of the rest of the people who are actually providing the money to have a say in the matter.  It is precisely because it the money of all taxpayers that the American people find earmarks to be so distasteful.  I do not live in Rep. Lewis’s district; so if he wants me to pay for a project for his constituents, I want my representative to have an opportunity to evaluate the project’s merits and to have a vote on the appropriation.

In November, if the American people decide to give the Republicans the privilege of being a majority and the Republicans nonetheless install Rep. Lewis as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee (as reported likely by the WSJ), the House leadership will have signaled that they have not learned their lesson; they cannot be trusted going forward; and they have no real desire to restore constitutionalism in government.