Now that House Republicans have voted to repeal healthcare reform and moved on to proposing deep, deep cuts to the federal budget, you're likely to hear more about the supposed evils of "earmarks."
Don't believe it.
Republicans, after all, just went through the exercise of reading the U.S. Constiution on the House floor.
Article I, Section 8 clearly gives Congress the power of the purse. So-called earmarks—steering federal funds to specific projects back home—simply are an extension of this constitutionally vested power.
Republican Sen. Dick Lugar understands this, and he is absolutely correct when he says that "eliminating earmarks cuts no spending."
If you think of the federal budget as a pie, earmarks don't by themselves influence the size of the pie, but merely are a means of dividing it up.
And earmarks are an entirely democratic, and accountable, means of splitting the federal pie around the nation.
The way most politicians act these days, Americans could be forgiven if they mistakenly think the job of being a member of Congress consists entirely of voting on legislation and preening for the cameras.
The truth is that lawmakers perform another important, if less glamorous, function, that of constituent service. (Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was carrying out just this kind of role when she was gunned down this month.)
That means lawmakers listen to the needs of the folks at home to represent those needs back in Washington.
So when mayors, town councils, or other local officials identify a need—such as an old bridge which requires repair, a lake or bay that needs cleaning up, or a local police department in need of new gear—their federal representatives in Congress rightfully seek funding to help pay for it.
It's striking to me that so many conservatives oppose earmarks, because this apportionment of funds clearly is closest to the taxpayer in terms of accountability. A taxpayer or voter can track a chain of accountability that not only includes the senator or representative making the earmark, but often all the way through a state's governor and local elected officials who first make the request.
Article comments
1 - Doug Hunter
The best practice is to let states pay for their own infrastructure. What you essentially have with earmarks is taxation without representation. Alaskan representatives building a bridge to nowhere do not represent me, yet my state must pay taxes like everyone else to fund their boondoggle. A better system would be letting Alaskans decide whether they want to pay for a bridge to nowhere with their own funds. I think you'd get alot less waste that way.
2 - Doug Hunter
Give the money formerly spent on earmarks as block grants to states relative to how much they contribute in taxes and let them spend it as they see fit.
3 - Boeke
Republicans were quite happy to use earmarks during the Bush administration.
4 - Andy Marsh
Who gives a fuck what republicans did under Bush and what does it have to do with anything that's happening now?
That's easily the MOST childish argument possible. He did it why can't I? Did that crap work with your mommy too?
5 - Boeke
True. I just brought it up to point out how desperate the R's are to find issues they could seem more virtuous about.
6 - Baronius
Antabuse doesn't cure alcoholism, but if you throw up every time you drink, you're just not going to hit the bottle the same way. Take away a congressman's power to direct federal money in the direction of his district, and you're going to reduce his urge to spend.
7 - Tommy Mack
Pop quiz? How was your library rebuilding funded? How about your VA hospital improvements?
Just asking.
(correct answer: 1848)
8 - Andy Marsh
VA hospitals are federal, libraries are local...that's apples and oranges.
9 - John
Republicans are cretins.