But what is an earmark, why has it become so vilified, and would eliminating them really help right the United States' sinking economic ship? We explore those questions below.
What are Earmarks?
An earmark is a relatively ambiguous term that occurs whenever a congressman designates a specific amount of money for a pet project. The point of an earmark is to bring large amounts of money back to the companies, organizations, and projects in a congressman's district. This allow him to campaign on the fact that he brought jobs to his district through his allocation of millions of dollars to the businesses that have the power to create jobs.
Earmarks are actually fairly complicated. Put simply, in most cases (and without the existence of an earmark), Congress grants a certain level of federal funding to a government agency and it is up to that agency to decide how the money is delegated to states, cities, and counties. This process of funding allocation is typically made through a process of application-and-review, which essentially means that the certain agency will accept applications for funding and make a decision on which of those projects or townships need the money more. But when an earmark is introduced, everything changes.
When a congressman requests an earmark for a specific project or town, the power of the agency to decide what to do with the money it is allocated by the government is taken away. Put another way,
An earmark is defined as a slice of the money allocated to an agency that a lawmaker or the president has requested be set aside for a specific project. [CNN, 03/11/11]
This definition clears up a common misperception, which is that earmarks are additional spending. In actuality, earmarks are simply a portion of the total amount that lawmakers have already agreed to spend for a given year. Without the earmark, the money would still be spent by the agency; the only difference is that the funding would be granted through the application-and-review process rather than being earmarked to a congressman's home district.
Congressman often vilify earmarks, as they are often painted by one party or the other as one of the most egregious forms of wasteful government spending. But earmarking is not a partisan issue; both parties are to blame for this spending. According to CNN,
When it comes to earmarks, the parties each take as good as they give.
Charles Konisberg, a former assistant budget director to the Clinton Administration explained it as such:In any given year, earmarks requested by members of the majority party typically account for 60% of earmarks, with the remaining 40% coming from members of the minority party. [CNN, 03/11/11]
"If earmarks go, the amount of money stays the same. It's more about who decides how the money will be spent."
 |
| Open Secrets |
Earmarks have become one of the most detested forms of government spending. Candidates for Congress often use a congressman's earmarks in ads and speeches as a way to say that said congressman is a "wasteful government spender" and an "example of a Washington insider." But do earmarks really deserve such a bad rap?
Congressional leaders and President's alike have long-vilified the earmarks. Mitch McConnell explained,
"There is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Congress is determined to fight," he said. [Washington Post, 11/21/2010]
President Obama has also taken the time to discourage Congress form utilizing the earmarks process. In an address in November of 2010, Obama explained,
I agree with those Republican and Democratic members of Congress who’ve recently said that in these challenging days, we can’t afford what are called earmarks. These are items inserted into spending bills by members of Congress without adequate review. [Whitehouse.gov, 11/13/2010]
But I tend to disagree with those who say that earmarks are one of the purest forms of political evil. There are a number of reasons why I disagree with this:
- Americans often believe that if you can properly reform earmarks, it could help get the economy back on track. But this, like the misconception that Americans believe that 20% of the US budget goes to foreign aid, is false. In actuality, congressional earmarks make up less than 1% of the federal budget. A ban on earmarks would do very little to stem the financial spending problem in Washington.
- Not only would a ban on earmarks save no more than a few billion dollars (which in the long run of a $3 trillion federal budget is an extremely trivial amount), but a ban would also force congressman to find new and innovative ways to acquire funding for their district. The most recent Congress is one of the best examples. After the 112th Congress promised a ban on all earmarks, congressmen found new ways to mark money for their most popular pet-projects. Instead of specifically earmarking and asking for money from government agencies, congressmen are now creating anonymous "funds" (which critics are deeming "slush funds") in which they put millions of dollars worth of money into. Citizens Against Government Waste describes it best:
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) expressed indignation over the establishment by the House Armed Services Committee of the $1 billion Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund (MFET), a slush fund included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Members of the committee added 111 legislative provisions that will cost taxpayers $651.7 millionons, or 53 percent, appear to be similar to projects included as earmarks in CAGW’s 2010 Congressional Pig Book....the MFET, which did not exist in the FY 2011 defense authorization bill, appears to be designed to allow members to secure pork for their districts without violating the congressional earmark moratorium. [CAGW, 5/31/2011]
A sad part about political life in Washington: Congressman, regardless of party affiliation, will always find ways to secure millions in extra funding for their district.
Furthermore, earmarks have funded a number of amazing projects, like the Human Genome Project. While I understand that earmarks go to a lot of pointless pet projects, I believe that the trivial amount of money that we spend on stupid projects should simply be seen as one of the costs of funding projects that have really done a lot to help small businesses and other organizations.
The Future of Earmarks
 |
| Google Images |
While President Obama has previously said that we cannot afford earmarks in a time of economic fragility, he has also recognized the merits of the projects that earmarks can fund. Obama explained,
Done right, earmarks give legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their district.
And according to CNN, Obama has laid out a new plan to reform earmarks. Obama called for future earmark requests to be subject to several criteria. Specifically, they must:
1) Have a legitimate and worthy public purpose
2) Be revealed in advance on lawmakers' Web sites
3) Be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts if the earmark is for a for-profit company; and
4) Never be traded for political favors
Steve Ellis, the Vice President of Taxpayers for Common Sense, says that there has to be a better way. He recommends that earmarks be granted on a merit-based system in which earmarks are tied to increased standards. CNN explains it this way:
Ellis believes Congress should set up an objective, merit-based earmark system that establishes a list of priorities. Transportation projects, for example, could be required to meet criteria that reflect national priorities such as improving traffic density, commuter safety or energy efficiency.
"Right now, no one can tell me why one project gets money and another doesn't," Ellis said.
Conclusion
Congress and the President have often used the idea of a "ban on all earmarks" as feel-good, rally-the-troops type of rhetoric. But the truth is, earmarks are not the problem. In fact, earmarks are a political "out" for politicians who are trying to escape the real issues on the budget, issues like reforming the tax code and establishing an adequate amount of government spending to fund government programs and make sure that major services such as entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social security) are still fully funded.
The debate over whether or not to ban earmarks has sadly convoluted the real problems with the budget. As long as Congress and the President continue to shine the spotlight on such a non-issue, our real budgetary problems will continue to persist, and the economy will continue to falter.
