An earmark is, simply put, an allocation of funds by those in Congress. In a 2012 Forbes article, the author described how Congress continues to practice earmarking despite the ban. The bigger news, according to freebeacon.com: Congress approved a $5.1 billion budget for earmarking in 2016 alone. With the practice alive and well — what should we expect in this country next?
Earmarking in the past
Look at the earmark projects of decades past and they share one common trait: congressmen were funding projects that ensured re-election. Only when the notorious Bridge to Nowhere became a national embarrassment did the porking seem to pause, and Congress made a show of transparency — right up until now, when earmarking is being openly recommended again.
Earmark as a threat to US citizens
Even though most earmark projects land close to home, they still amount to wasted money. Most exist to polish a politician’s name, not to improve the wellness of citizens. As Citizens Against Government Waste puts it: it is money that could have funded far better projects.
Who benefits from earmark spending?
Congress and its allocators defend such spending as a “worthy public purpose” that boosts local incomes in their districts. We still wonder who really benefits.
-
It skips the legal, competitive process
We may benefit from an earmark project here and there — but none of them pass through the legal, competitive allocation process. That means projects that deserve funding more than these politically earmarked ones lose their chance, and with it goes the greater public benefit.
-
It is a symptom of overspending
Earmarking is a symptom of overspending. When a project passes, it drags its own trail of allocations behind it, and certain earmarks pile on further costs. Example: a congressman passes a city park at $1.5 million, laced with underlying earmarked projects — when the same park could pass for $1 million under the ordinary bureaucratic process.
-
It builds unsustainable dependencies
Institutions start to rely on a political patron granting their wishes — and when the patron goes, the deficiency arrives. Case in point: the $30 million per year the University of Nebraska received through Senator John Kerry’s earmarking. When Kerry retired, the university suddenly found itself $30 million short.
-
It leads to bribery and corruption
Recipients of earmark projects are often the private companies that helped fund the sitting politician’s campaign. To secure campaign money, something must be promised in return once the politician wins. It is the same mechanism as buying voters — projects promised in exchange for support.
-
It is all federal tax dollars
Earmark projects are funded by federal tax money, distributed according to whatever passes in Congress — even when it benefits only a small circle. Some groups thus enjoy far more access to federal tax dollars than others; and most of those groups sit conveniently close to powerful legislators, who can pass any earmark because they have powerful friends in the House as well.
Conclusion
How can we put a stop to earmarking? The fight is ongoing. Watchdogs like Citizens Against Government Waste and Taxpayers for Common Sense keep calling for transparency in Congress.
As long as legislators still push the belief that earmarking is an effective way of serving the people, it will remain a widespread practice among politicians.
Besides — in Section 8 of Article I, the Constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes and to spend them.