We’ve all seen that unlucky parent dealing with the kid stomping and screaming in the checkout line demanding a sweet treat or precious trinket. Trying to stave off a public and disruptive temper tantrum, the parent ends up caving, thus rewarding the bad behavior.

As the Senate was wrapping up work before this week’s recess, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threw the legislative equivalent of a tantrum , threatening to “tie the Senate in knots” to get $50,000 earmarked for a study of port deepenings, particularly the port of Charleston, which just so happens to be in South Carolina. Rather than hold the line, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) quickly acquiesced to this outrageous demand, promising to push to get the Corps of Engineers budget working on the studies this fiscal year. Of course Sen. Reid has long-been a fan of earmarks and almost seemed gleeful about the chance to unravel the bi-cameral ban on these sweet treats.

But this is bigger than just earmarks . The Graham proposal would prioritize port deepening studies over other Corps projects such as flood and storm damage reduction. In other words, put lives and property at risk to keep the port of Charleston happy.

For years, the Corps of Engineers budget was carved up to serve parochial interests here or there based on political muscle rather than project merit. There was little rhyme or reason as to what got funded and for how much. For years Congress fought against establishing a system to prioritize funding to the most important or critical projects, instead kicking and screaming while clutching to a pork barrel system.

Port projects are among the worst to dole out helter-skelter, because investments in one port greatly affect neighboring ports. A deeper channel here may mean less traffic there, better access to roads and railroads may make one port more attractive than another. As the Panama Canal expansion continues, ports up and down the Eastern seaboard are in a race to the bottom to attract larger vessels.

But the fact of the matter is the country doesn’t need New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Hampton Roads, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Miami (to just name a few) to all be deep. This infighting is great for the shipping lines, they can play one port against another to extract the best deals, but for the federal taxpayer footing the bill, it’s a nightmare. Besides, a deeper channel is only part of the equation of what makes a good port for shipping. Where is the port of origin? How long is the transit from the sea buoy to the dock and how difficult? What’s at the end of the dock as far as population centers, distance to other population centers, roads, railroads, and actual port facilities?

Just because you have deep harbor doesn’t mean you’re going to get a lot of traffic.

A much better use of the $50,000 that Sen. Graham wants to tie the Senate up in knots over would be to actually get the Corps to do something desperately needed – work with other affected agencies to come up with a regional or even national plan for our nation’s ports.

If Senator Graham wants to do the country a service and actually believes Charleston harbor is all that it is cracked up to be he would be pushing for establishing transparent, merit-based funding systems and for a regional or nation port investment analysis and planning. That wouldn’t be an earmark and would actually help lead us to better investment decisions with our precious taxpayer dollars.

TCS QUOTE OF THE WEEK:

“As leaders in the business community, we expect to share the effects of reductions in public programs or increases in taxes – or more likely, both. We do not seek sacrifice for its own sake. But we – and we believe all Americans – are prepared to contribute our fair share to make our country sound, secure and strong again.”

– Statement released Thursday by the nonpartisan Committee for Economic Development which called for a serious budget plan. Statement