Joe Lhota’s onto something.
We’re talking about member items. This is the spending drawn from a City Council fund — $400 million last year — the speaker doles out to members to use in their districts.
In other words, a slush fund.
The speaker likes it because it gives her the power that comes from having money to buy . . . er, reward . . . political loyalty. The members like it because they use it to buy loyalty and votes in their districts, making it hard for a challenger to unseat them. Meanwhile, the taxpayer gets screwed.
Which is where Lhota comes in. In the past, Lhota has rightly called for the abolition of member items. He’s also suggested that, at the least, there ought to be detailed explanations for each member item — and an inspector general to monitor corruption.
Now he’s making a modest but important proposal: If the council won’t eliminate this slush fund, members should at least pay for it by making cuts elsewhere in the $70 billion budget they’re now negotiating. That’s because the next mayor and council will inherit six months’ worth of their spending plan.
At the national level, Americans recognized earmarks for the scam they were when they exploded during the years Dennis Hastert ran the Republican House. Earmarks were the way members of Congress loaded up bills with their pet projects. Taxpayers saw that though earmarks represented only a small part off the federal budget, they acted as the gateway drug to Washington’s spending addiction.
Member items work much the same, and are even less accountable. Let’s hope candidate Lhota gives this issue the prominence it deserves in this election year.