Although a self-imposed ban on earmarks is officially in place, pet projects appear to be inevitable in Congress: just recently, a $5 billion fund was approved for earmark projects in FY 2016. The practice was supposed to stop in 2010 — and yet the U.S. government seems, if anything, to have embraced earmarking.
Can the government veer away from earmarking?
In 2010, the Republicans pushed through a ban on earmarking. It didn’t stop the pet projects from showing up. The watchdog Citizens Against Government Waste found that in 2014, at least $4.2 billion was spent on earmark projects all over again.
CAGW’s sharper point: under the moratorium, earmarks became less transparent, not more. There is no official list of earmark projects anymore — no record of what was spent or how. Anyone wanting to dig into a specific project now has to do a great deal of work to get anywhere.
Why can’t the government stay away from it?
Earmarking is a way of securing legislative position, especially among party members — a way for career politicians to build their networks and connections. Pet projects also secure a politician’s standing back home in the district: highways and parks with their names attached make excellent campaign material.
The winners: legislators, lobbyists, and the few with an interest in each project. The biggest loser: the taxpayer, watching their money thrown at projects that benefit the powerful.
What do the lobbyists have to say?
Aside from legislators, lobbyists are among the few who benefit from earmark projects. When the proposal to ban earmarks surfaced in 2010, the American League of Lobbyists argued that a ban wouldn’t help the people at all — adding that earmarking is the only way for legislators to serve their constituents’ interests.
The group stands by a firm belief: legislators know what their constituents need — something, they argue, the federal government does not.
Why lobbyists want to push on with earmarks
- Lobbyists believe that cutting earmark projects doesn’t actually cut federal spending.
- Lobbyists believe earmark projects are the only way to serve constituents at the local level.
- Lobbyists believe a ban on earmarks means lost funding for local and non-profit organizations — leading to layoffs and lost jobs.
Has the government fully embraced earmarking?
Despite official claims that the U.S. government has veered away from and banned earmarking, the report from the 2016 Congressional Pig Book shows otherwise. From FY 2015 to FY 2016 alone, billions upon billions of dollars were unearthed by CAGW as pet-project spending. And while the number of earmark projects has fallen since the ban, the projects that remain carry bigger budgets with less description provided.
Despite the moratorium, the people on Capitol Hill cannot veer away from making pet projects that benefit themselves — and some of their constituents.