The Return of Earmarks Means More Pork-Barrel Spending by Congress
Lawmakers stuffed more than $8 billion in pet projects into an omnibus federal spending bill passed in March. But wait, didn't Congress ban earmarks back in 2011?

Lawmakers stuffed more than 4,000 pet projects, totaling more than $8 billion, into an omnibus federal spending bill passed in March. But wait, didn't Congress ban earmarks back in 2011?
Yes, a Republican majority in 2011 banned earmarks, also called pork-barrel spending, in response to scandals like Alaska's $398 million "Bridge to Nowhere" and the earmark-related crimes of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But because the rules Congress sets for itself apply only if Congress wants them to, the earmark ban has gone the way of other fiscally conservative reforms of the Tea Party era, such as discretionary spending caps.
That means federal taxpayers will contribute $1.6 million to a Roger Williams University program intended to promote the "development of equitable growth of shellfish aquaculture" in Rhode Island; $800,000 to help build "artist lofts" in California; a cool half million for a new ski jumping facility in New Hampshire; and $1.5 million for a new playground in San Francisco.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) secured funding for 142 projects, according to a list of earmarks compiled by Sen. Mike Braun (R–Ind.). Among the vital national interests that Schumer squeezed into the bill: $1.1 million for a "rail-trail," $3 million for the Brooklyn Museum, and $1.5 million for capital improvements at a Staten Island theater. While each of those line items is just a drop in the federal budget bucket, waste is waste.
Advocates for bringing back earmarks have argued for years that a little congressional grift helps grease the wheels of government—as if Congress has ever been reluctant to spend money. The idea that earmarks facilitate bipartisan cooperation is belied by the fact that the omnibus bill included earmarks for several Republican lawmakers who voted against it.
The problem with earmarks has always been that they are secretive and opaque, often slipped into legislation with no public oversight or process for determining whether the spending is really needed. That hasn't changed.
The 2,741-page text of the omnibus bill was made public on Wednesday, March 9. By the end of the week, the bill had sailed through both chambers of Congress and was on its way to President Joe Biden's desk. There was little time for the public to scrutinize 367 pages of earmarks or any other part of the $1.5 trillion spending plan, which funds the federal government through the end of September.
Braun, who offered an amendment on the Senate floor to strip out the earmarks from the bill, called the final package "a disgrace." Not enough of his colleagues agreed. The pork-killing amendment failed, 64–35.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Earmarks Are Back."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Of course they did. wink, wink, nudge , nudge, Bob's your uncle.
I’ve made so far this year and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. (res12) It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do.
.
For more details visit:>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
When was the last time Congress actually passed a regular budget rather than an "omnibus" spending bill?
Good morning Peanuts! Did you know the Biden economy is the best in US history? You would if you stopped paying attention to wingnut.com disinformation about "inflation" and "high gas prices," and started looking at what really matters: the Warren Buffett Net Worth Index. Buffett just gained $2.36 billion in one day. That means Biden is doing a great job and probably has 90% approval.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
#BringBackButtplug
🙂
Ironically it's precisely because Biden is doing so well that Mr. Buttplug has scaled back his #DefendBidenAtAllCosts routine. Spending all his #BidenBoom money is a full time job, leaving little room for something as trivial as the Reason comment section.
#BestEconomyEver
I’m guessing he parlayed this boom into buying Epstein’s island.
Little girls not included.
Hr doesn't ask them their gender bigot.
Buttplug may be very ageist but he's not homo or transphobic.
The world would be a more pleasant place w/o SPB. Not because it holds opposing viewpoints, but because it is a smug dickhead about them, and its arguments are weak when they are not self-defeating.
Majority of his links he hasn't even read. It is hilarious debunking his talking points with his own links.
Buttplug posts regularly when he's out on weekend parole.
You really need to lay off Hunter's crack pipe.
Of course, the alternative to earmarks is to have unelected bureaucrats decide how the money is spent. Is that really an improvement?
Yes. It gives congress less incentive to pass gigantic budgets only for the spoils to be won and divvied up by someone else. The alternative with earmarks is a direct incentive by every single member of congress to spend more and to fight hard to make sure their district gets the biggest slice of the pie. A bureaucrat's incentive is only to his own agency or department, and he also doesn't get a choice in how much money he receives.
Which still happens with the actual big budget line items.
As any pig farmer could tell you, earmarks are how you can tell who owns a particular pig. It's like branding for cattle.
It's actually to tell which pigs belong to which sire/sow in which litter for genetic and time to market purposes. For the better part of a century, tattoos have been used to 'brand' pigs as the tattoos show up even on the carcass after processing.
I do like the idea of tattooing Congress critters so that we know which policy decisions their carcasses belong to.
At the very least, jump suits with logos like a NASCAR racer.
Preferably on their forehead.
Good thing the adults are back in charge
This is what you voted for you evil subhuman trash
Boehm was at the forefront of the return to normalcy mantra the last 5 years.
No apologies, no regrets:
ERIC BOEHM
Reporter
Who do you plan to vote for this year?
...(If) I believe there is a chance that Joe Biden will somehow fail to win Virginia, in which case I will vote strategically and reluctantly for Biden.
If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be?
I can't imagine thinking a single vote is valuable enough to spend time regretting.
Common sense politician control seems like a good start, since voting is failing. Tar, feathers, that sort of approach.
And, if one bring's up a list of earmarks, one might, unless perhaps there is a sociopolitical reason compelling one to not do so, provide the link to the list. Thusly: https://www.braun.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Earmarks%20in%20Sum.pdf
So don't make it a congressional rule.
Let's pass a "no earmark" amendment.
That way only the supreme court gets to have special benefits.
Agreed, but I suspect this will go the way of Braun's bill to strip the earmarks from the omnibus. Congress doesn't do much but raise their own pay, and steal taxpayer dollars for their donors. That said, they are pretty good at sending billions of unaccountable dollars and troops -never their own families, to places that the US has no interest in, because 'somebody must do something.' For the children, of course. Or, to stop the evil Russians.
TL;DR, but all you need to know is that, given the choice, Reason always comes out for scientific spending decisions by experts, rather than democratic accountability for spending decisions by elected officials.
Hey, our reps are only doing what people want. Which is running a government that is part Santa Claus, part nanny, and part country preacher, with a sprinkling of crazy uncle.
A part the big bully they are afraid to be themselves.
Say you don't like a particular bit of spending. Wouldn't you rather have a member of the legislature, who can be voted out, to blame, than a bureaucrat who got that position either by civil service or by an executive appointment?
Like for example a NIH grant, via their regular grant application and approval process, to study something. What do you do, vote out the president? Vote out every member of Congress who voted to fund NIH? Somebody explain how an earmark to fund that study would be worse.
I still ponder the impact of people ear-marking their taxes on their annual returns. What fun we could have if the IRS could provide about a dozen categories and let us allocate where our taxes go. (And what fun we could have determining the categories and what to call them.)
It's six of one, half a dozen of the other, and I already explained the perverse incentive structure with earmarks above. If the NIH, which shouldn't exist, is going to dole out money for research, which isn't the government's job, members of congress have less incentive to keep increasing the NIH budget if they don't personally see any direct benefit from it, whereas if a particularly skilled negotiator from Nebraska can keep a steady flow of grant money into East Bumblefuck University that otherwise would have had to close 20 years ago because it's a shit school with no competent researchers, he has every incentive to keep attaching earmarks to bills for increasingly useless and outlandish research to take place at East Bumblefuck University. The NIH bureaucrat has a different set on incentives and will lobby congress to keep his budget, but since congress receives no direct benefit from that, they have less incentive to spend.
I have a sneaky suspicion that there would be unseen consequences. Channels by which congress critters and their cronies would find ways to benefit anyway. To paraphrase Dr. Malcom, "Corruption finds a way". Spending needs to be cut. Programs need to be abolished. I know, good luck with that.
Because everyone knows letting unelected bureacrats divvy up the spending is far superior to letting elected Congressmen go on the record and do it.
It certainly creates less incentive for congress to throw trillions of dollars into the hands of someone else who will spend it ways they can't control or benefit from.
scandals like Alaska's $398 million "Bridge to Nowhere"
Learn to code Buster. The so called bridge to nowhere was a bridge for Ketchikan to access their island airport, also for the thousands of tourists that fly there. Not as necessary though as private stadiums built with public money.
Don't knock earmarks.
If it wasn't for pork, politicians and their cronies wouldn't get rich off the taxpayers.
Then who would pay for their third Mercedes or fourth vacation home in the Bahamas?
But I was told it was those greedy corporations giving me internet access, toilet paper, cars, gasoline, heat, air conditioning, etc, etc... that were extorting money from all of us unfairly....
They said; It was going to cost me....
($1.5T / 158M employed people in the USA = $9,493/per-working-person) or
$791/month this year to fix that UN-holy extortion..... They assured me this years 'fix' was way less than last years 'fix' but I can't figure out how much 'fixing' it takes since I'm running out of toilet paper to fund the fixing of the toilet paper corporation.
Remember that day the people amended the US Constitution and gave the Union Government the authority to collect money from it's citizens by Gov-Gun point for any "Pet-Project" it wanted?????
Yeah; Me neither.....
F'En Nazi's (syn; National Socialists).
Well, at least our 2 month old is doing without infant formula. Thank GOD they did not Tamper with our children’s well being.