Earmarking is about spending on a project locally. The practice is fondly termed “bringing home the bacon,” as legislators keep working on projects that will benefit their voters back home. If that is the whole story — why should U.S. taxpayers be concerned about earmarks at all?
There is no need to bring back a policy that allows politicians to make projects with no merit. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
McCaskill’s point is precise: earmark projects were made with no cost-benefit studies — and often without a clear statement of what the projects were even for.
What we should know about earmarks
We all know the basics: an earmark is a fund allocated to projects our legislators create, with no need for approval. Beyond that basic fact, there are four more things every taxpayer should understand.
-
No precise definition required
When appropriating funds for an earmark project, there is no need to give a precise, exact definition of what the project is about. According to the Office of Management and Budget, earmark projects are simply tagged as “requests for funds approved by the Congress.”
-
“Transparent” doesn’t mean transparent
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 calls for more transparent spending — but that doesn’t make it 100% transparent. Under the Act, if an earmark project is backed by constituents, it is good to go. The law identifies the recipient of the project, but says nothing about exactly how the money will be spent.
-
The ban only banned the word
In 2010, the Congress and Senate banned the use of earmarks — and promptly stopped using only the term. Some members showed their creative side with new coinages like “lettermarks” and “phonemarks”: reinventions of the earmark, built to keep the project money flowing.
-
The real cost is unknowable
The law identifying earmark projects is so vague that finding the actual cost of wasted federal tax is genuinely difficult. Studies suggest only 1% of total federal tax spending goes to earmark projects — very little indeed. Yet that 1% could go a long way if spent properly, or given to a group that badly needs it.
Why should we concern ourselves with earmarks?
As Senator McCaskill said, an earmark project comes with no cost-benefit study or analysis. That alone should make every taxpaying individual cringe. Imagine your hard-earned money thrown away simply to make a few people happy.
Earmarking can lead to corruption
Because earmarking awards projects to people the politicians favor — without needing consent from the public or the federal government — it slides easily into corruption and bribery.
Earmarking can cause unbalanced fund distribution
Earmark projects are created by people in power, for people close to them. The result: most of these tax funds are allotted to limited groups. Proximity to the one holding the power is the key to getting an earmark project. That makes our tax dollars inaccessible to most — especially those who need them.
An unnecessary shortcut with negative results
Earmarking is a shortcut — and shortcuts have consequences. Consider district-level health researchers seeking funds for their studies. With an earmark, the research pushes through whether or not the study has merit. The proper route would be sending the proposal to the National Institutes of Health for peer review to evaluate that merit.
Since earmark projects don’t go through rigorous evaluation, neither does the work they fund — a recipe for wasted money and wasted time.
The spending keeps growing
Earmark defenders repeat that these projects account for just 1% of federal tax spending. That may be true — but the continuous growth of earmark spending over the last 20 years is alarming in itself. Studies of military and transportation projects show earmark spending climbing higher and higher, with a marked surge during the George W. Bush administration.
Final word
As working individuals, we may never feel the effect of any single earmark project. We pay our taxes dutifully, remain outstanding U.S. residents, go to sleep at night, and wake up the next day. But here is the thing: the taxes we hand over — money that could have bought more food or clothes for our families — are given to the government as part of our responsibility as citizens.
Let us hope, then, that the people managing our taxes use them accordingly — and not just for their own good.