Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Case for Earmarks
Jonathan Rauch argues that earmarks today "are a model, not a menace":
In the 1980s and 1990s, the once-sequestered system cracked open. The number of earmarks increased by a factor of 25 between 1991 and 2005. Earmarks were often invisible, at least until after they were enacted. "The bill would be passed before people even started digging into what was in there," [Scott] Lilly says. Public outrage swelled.
On its heels, however, came reform, notably in the last couple of years. Every earmark request now must be made public before Congress votes on it. The sponsoring member, the amount and nature of the request, and the name and address of the beneficiary must all be disclosed. You can find all this stuff online....[M]any congressional offices have formalized the application procedure. Getting an earmark now is a lot like applying for a grant.
As transparency has taken over, the case against earmarks has melted away. Their budgetary impact is trivial in comparison with entitlements and other large programs. Obsessing about earmarks, indeed, has the perverse, if convenient, effect of distracting the country from its real spending problems, thus substituting indignation for discipline.
Read the whole thing here. Earmarks' critics are right to be vigilant for pork, and -- more important -- for the logrolling that often accompanies it. But they might want to spare a little more ire for military and entitlement spending.
Naga Sadow|3.14.09 @ 2:29PM|#
Gotta disagree with Rauch on the earmarks. My take was that earmarks are simply a way of buying forgiveness for passing huge spending bills.
ed|3.14.09 @ 2:48PM|#
I think people hate earmarks on principle, not for their relatively miniscule portion of the overall budget. I would add that most people don't hate those earmarks that benefit them personally.
Kolohe|3.14.09 @ 3:17PM|#
I have always said that the focus on earmarks is misguided
because they are relative chump change and in general do not alter
the amount of federal spending (it's just an alternative to
competitive bidding for the most part)
As transparency has taken over, the case against earmarks has
melted away.
I wouldn't go this far however. Yes sure, we have transparency. But
with re-election rates continuously north of reply to this
Kolohe|3.14.09 @ 3:19PM|#
90% in the House - and the likely positive correlation between earmarks and re-election probability - it's transparency without accountability.
Hugh Akston|3.14.09 @ 3:23PM|#
Their budgetary impact is trivial in comparison with
entitlements and other large programs.
I've always hated this kind of "it's only a drop in the ocean"
argument. Bad spending policies are bad no matter their size.
First of all, military and entitlement spending are entrenched and
codified, whereas earmarks are discretionary (in the actual sense
of the term). So focus on earmarks is a focus on the kinds of
decisions the clowns in congress are making. Military and
entitlement spending, on the other hand, is emblematic of the
structural problems in the federal government.
Second, even a small problem is still a problem. It's also probably
relatively easier to address for being such.
|3.14.09 @ 4:28PM|#
Here* is another take on earmarks, one more in line with my way
of thinking.
What Stern, Kammer and Condon uncovered in their investigation of Cunningham's criminality went far beyond the rather seedy yet spectacular corruption of one Congressman. The authors have written a brief against the budget device that led Cunningham (and no doubt others) down a primrose path toward temptation and ultimately, a moral surrender to turpitude. It is a device that threatens the foundations of trust in our elected officials: the belief that they are acting in the interests of their constituents and not to line their pockets with gifts and cash from the legions of lobbyists whose only job is to wring as much of our tax dollars as is humanly possible from the government and deposit it in the bank accounts of their clients (keeping a healthy portion of pork for themselves).
The device is earmarks, of course. And if you can come away after reading this book and not be shaking in anger at the unadulterated and transparent corruption that earmarks have fostered, then you don't pay taxes or simply don't care about the theft of your money.
* Wanting evidence for a rebuttal, I simply googled "Duke
Cinningham earmarks" and this jumped out at me.
Lefiti|3.14.09 @ 4:28PM|#
It's a little hard to get folks riled up about wasteful government spending on the heels of paroxyms of private-sector greed and fraud, but I can see how you libertarian fanatics have to keep trying. Obama's budget is leaving you fuckwits in the dust, isn't it?
|3.14.09 @ 4:29PM|#
I've become immune to caring about earmarks. The greater evil is how Congress decides that they are going to spend $X Billion, and then that amount is split amongst the Congressmen. It's the appropriations committees who need to be slain every time they decide this huge amount of money, which will then be earmarked, must be spent.
|3.14.09 @ 4:42PM|#
As others have noted earmarks receive a vastly disproportionate
amount of attention vs. their harm ($18 billion in a $3 trillion
budget).
Wait till its the SS/Medicare old folks (vs.) the Defense
Industry!
That will be king of budget showdowns.
Something tells me the GOP will be the demographic loser on that
one too.
|3.14.09 @ 5:00PM|#
The case against earmarks is not about the earmarks themselves,
it's about the bills that get passed as a result of the presence of
earmarks.
There is a strong correlation between overall spending and earmark
spending for a reason -- congressmen who might have voted their
conscience, or, god forbid, their constituents' interests on a
bill, instead make their decision based on what they can squeeze
out for their own pet projects knowing full well that enough others
will also go along provided they also get a slice. Take away this
distortion of the process and the dynamic changes to what else they
can take credit for: what they can cut out.
Warty|3.14.09 @ 5:03PM|#
BSG is really pissing me off. What was the point of the fucking
flashbacks that took up half the episode? Boo hoo, Roslin's sisters
died, Starbuck liked Zach, and Baltar was a dick to his dad. Thank
you for the crucial information, you dicks. Oh, and there was a
pigeon, too. Fuck you, BSG. If you don't have time to wrap up the
series in a logical way because you squandered it all on the TV
equivalent of guitar solos, I'll be pissed.
Anyone else care to vent?
|3.14.09 @ 5:20PM|#
The case against earmarks is not about the earmarks
themselves, it's about the bills that get passed as a result of the
presence of earmarks.
That is an excellent point.
Senator Shelby was the #1 recipient of Senate pork.
What does that say about him?
Jesse Walker|3.14.09 @ 5:39PM|#
The case against earmarks is not about the earmarks
themselves, it's about the bills that get passed as a result of the
presence of earmarks.
Yes, that's the logrolling I referred to. I think Rauch would reply
that the problem goes much deeper than the earmark system, and that
earmarks at least make the trading more transparent.
Mad Max|3.14.09 @ 6:52PM|#
Publicity for earmarks seems like a classic
Brer-Rabbit-in-the-Briar-Patch situation (if you'll pardon such a
racist reference which is obviously designed to denigrate our first
black President).
"Oh, no, don't let my constituents find out about all the pork I've
earmarked for my district instead of other districts! And whatever
you do, don't denounce me as the 'king of pork' or any such term
indicating that the federal government may be putting more money
back into my district than it takes out of it! How could I get
re-elected if the voters find out about all the nice, juicy slabs
of pork I've been serving them?"
VM|3.14.09 @ 7:32PM|#
why are you hier? isn't there a roman empire thread for you to post on, shithead?
Chrispy|3.14.09 @ 9:03PM|#
I only skimmed the linked article, but it seems more like the case against the case against earmarks. In any case, it wasn't very convincing.
B|3.14.09 @ 10:47PM|#
Indeed, they should spare more ire for military spending, because now is the perfect time to reduce spending on the military.
The Wine Commonsewer (You can |3.15.09 @ 2:29AM|#
I heard former libertarian Dana Rohrabacher, (r) somewhere in So
Cal, arguing in favor of earmarks the other day on the radio.
Big Sigh.
Went to a couple parties at his place in Belmont Shore back in the
day (dating myself, but Dana is older than me). Whoa! Dude, that is
a man who could party.
He won't remember me so don't ask. Ed Royce, OTOH, will,
though.
See, this kinda shit makes me look important at cocktail parties.
Or not.
|3.15.09 @ 5:37AM|#
More or less the same argument Ron Paul made a few days
ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz2aIWjyOp8
Now I don't much believe in the guy, but I can see his point:
earmarking is about deciding where the money goes, not
whether the money goes. You don't want it spent, you vote
against the spending bill itself. If you don't earmark it, then our
vile and 0bomanable Pres__ent gets to decide where it all goes.
Some Guy|3.15.09 @ 8:00AM|#
Earmarks are just death by a thousand paper cuts. And let's not forget that earmarks help get the worst spending bills passed. The bailout failed the first time around, then passed with $150B in earmarks. Those $150B earmarks cost $850B, not to mention the side effects.
Lord Jubjub|3.15.09 @ 10:30AM|#
While publicizing earmarks may well help some representatives show off their ability to get pork, it will at least reduce some of the self-dealing that happens with these earmarks (maybe).
|3.15.09 @ 12:45PM|#
The term earmark as altered meaning over the last 5 years.
Originally, the term meant only spending inserted during the
conference committee between the house and the senate. Any changes
there were only subject to an up or down vote on the entire bill in
each chamber. Now days, earmarks just means dedicated pork meant to
benefit a particular member of congress. How the pork gets inserted
into the bill isn't really a factor. The original definition of
earmark targeted a particular corrupt legislative practice
intentionally designed to subvert democratic compromise.
The problem with all pork, regardless of how it gets legislated has
nothing to do with the overall amount of money being spent (which
according the article is 2% of federal spending or roughly 40
billion dollars.) Pork is the tiny rudder that steers the great
ship of government spending. Congressmen trade a vote on $200
billion in spending on one bill for $2 million in spending on their
private pork. Pork lets the party leaders discipline wayward
members by threatening to cut off projects for their districts
unless they vote the party line on big projects.
The way to end this is to get the congress out of the business of
voting on small projects that only affect on members district.
Honestly, should the entire U.S. congress be voting on funding a
single bike path in Madison, WI? Congress should stick to the big
picture and leave the piddling stuff to federal bueracrats, the
states and localities.
Ain't gonna happen, though.
|3.15.09 @ 2:42PM|#
Yeah, but look what happens when someone brings up entitlement
spending.
You can't touch entitlements because they have huge entrenched
constituencies defending them.
Constituencies that are in deep denial about the economic
sustainability of these programs. They live in some kind of fantasy
universe where the US economy grows 5% a year indefinitely to make
up the shortfall. Any suggestion that this isn't going to happen is
met with hysterical screams that opponents want old people to
starve and die in the streets.
Taktix®|3.15.09 @ 2:54PM|#
Any suggestion that this isn't going to happen is met with
hysterical screams that opponents want old people to starve and die
in the streets.
I often counter by pointing out that I do want old people
to starve and die in the streets.
I don't have many friends, though...
|3.15.09 @ 3:05PM|#
"Their budgetary impact is trivial in comparison with
entitlements and other large programs."
A million dollar bribe is very small compared to the rest of the
budget. Why not just allow those? Earmarks allow Congress people
and their chronies to get rich at the expense of the tax payer.
Making them transparent doesn't change that fact.
|3.16.09 @ 10:11AM|#
Warty | March 14, 2009, 5:03pm | #
BSG is really pissing me off. What was the point of the fucking
flashbacks that took up half the episode? Boo hoo, Roslin's sisters
died, Starbuck liked Zach, and Baltar was a dick to his dad. Thank
you for the crucial information, you dicks. Oh, and there was a
pigeon, too. Fuck you, BSG. If you don't have time to wrap up the
series in a logical way because you squandered it all on the TV
equivalent of guitar solos, I'll be pissed.
Anyone else care to vent?
I haven't seen it yet, but hearing this is pissing me off.
Now I know that all i have to look forward to is crap. That kind of
irritates me.
What I wanted out of an episode I haven't seen is to know if Kara
is a Cylon. To know why the caprica cylons allowed the earth
skinjobs to take out their independence chips, and to become their
bosses,
To know if in fact the earth humans were in fact all cylons, and
that cylons are an improved form of humanity that allows us to not
die.
I don't want pigeons and family drama.
So, some of my questions might already be answered, I am about 2 or
3 episodes behind. They are downloaded onto my laptop, but I
haven't seen them yet.
|3.16.09 @ 10:15AM|#
I seriously question the value of "transparency" in the context
of a spending bill with 9,000 earmarks. Its the classic
needle-in-a-haystack strategy.
With that many earmarks, the "bad" ones are unlikely to be outed
simply because there is such a large herd for them to hide in.
Robert|3.16.09 @ 12:57PM|#
Honestly, should the entire U.S. congress be voting on funding a single bike path in Madison, WI? Congress should stick to the big picture and leave the piddling stuff to federal bueracrats, the states and localities.
Seriously, you'd rather not have spending on a bike path determined
by members of Congress subject to election? You'd rather have it
decided by unelected bureaucrats? Or have it block granted to a
state whose politicians aren't dependent on state taxes for those
dollars, and hence can get credit for bringing home bacon
without blame for the taxes to fund it?
This is why I'm in favor of earmarking as much as possible of every
spending bill.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245