Why Earmarks Matter
Josh Harding
April 01, 2009
For many crusaders against wasteful government spending, earmarks, aka pork-barrel spending, represent the most egregious form of waste. Earmarks are congressional provisions that direct spending to a specific project in a particular representative´s district. It was earmarks that would have brought us Alaska´s "Bridge To Nowhere." In my home state of Iowa, earmarks would have financed an indoor rainforest. While these particular earmarks were dropped, equally wasteful projects do receive funding.
It is not much of a surprise that the earmark process has strong support in Congress, making reform of this wasteful spending highly unlikely. It may come as a surprise, however, that one of the champions of earmarks is Dr. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas who sought the Republican Party nomination for president in 2008. In the 2009 omnibus spending bill, for example, Paul obtained $96.1 million in earmarks for his district.
In his "Texas Straight Talk" column from March 16, 2009, Dr. Paul considers the fuss over earmarks a "red herring" and that we need to be focused on the overall growth of government "if this country is ever to thrive again." He also argues that earmarks do not increase government spending, because spending levels are determined by appropriators, and earmarks are carved out of that budget resolution.
Dr. Paul is correct, up to a point. Spending resolutions are capped, and earmark spending is supposed to be carved out of the capped resolution. However, Andrew Roth from the Club for Growth points out that often earmark spending is "air dropped" into conference reports after the House and Senate pass their versions of a bill. Roth cites spending on water projects in one budget increased over 60 percent thanks to government pork.
On top of that, take a look at the growth in pork spending since 1990. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, earmark spending increased from $4.7 billion in FY1991 to $30.4 billion in FY2006. Earmarks are clearly fueling increased spending, as appropriators continually raise budget caps to make room for more pork.
(While earmark spending has dipped due to partisan battles over the budget, do not expect this trend to continue now that the Democrats control Congress and the White House.)
Another reason Dr. Paul considers pork spending to be a red herring is that it only makes up 1 percent of the budget. He is once again correct. However, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), hardly a champion of restrained spending, notes how earmarks are used to get reluctant congressmen to support spending measures. Considering that nondefense spending is set to reach 23 percent of Gross Domestic Product, earmarks are very problematic if they sway Congress to sign off on such a reckless growth in government.
Since Dr. Paul often invokes the Founding Fathers when making his case on particular issues, it is important to note the disdain two of our most prominent Founders had on the type of spending Paul justifies. James Madison, in one of his last acts as president, vetoed a bill that contained funding for "internal improvements." Madison stated that to support such a measure would "have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one" and that signing off on this allows the federal government to embrace "every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust." Thomas Jefferson went even further, stating how federal funding of local projects triggers "a scene of scramble among the members [for] who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest."
Spending discipline is needed now more than ever. Budget caps need to be set low in order to weed out earmarks and to prevent the increased spending of bureaucrats. Anyone participating in the earmark process only serves to reinforce the upward spiral of irresponsible government growth.
Sources:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/upload/federalspendingbythenumbers2008.pdf
http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=090316_2757,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2ZhYTJjZmQ3NTAzMTZlMWJhMDkxZGJhMzlhYWExMWY=
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6286883.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnBoehner/2007/09/27/pork_barrel_stonewall?page=1
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/fund012306.asp
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/981.html
It is not much of a surprise that the earmark process has strong support in Congress, making reform of this wasteful spending highly unlikely. It may come as a surprise, however, that one of the champions of earmarks is Dr. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas who sought the Republican Party nomination for president in 2008. In the 2009 omnibus spending bill, for example, Paul obtained $96.1 million in earmarks for his district.
In his "Texas Straight Talk" column from March 16, 2009, Dr. Paul considers the fuss over earmarks a "red herring" and that we need to be focused on the overall growth of government "if this country is ever to thrive again." He also argues that earmarks do not increase government spending, because spending levels are determined by appropriators, and earmarks are carved out of that budget resolution.
Dr. Paul is correct, up to a point. Spending resolutions are capped, and earmark spending is supposed to be carved out of the capped resolution. However, Andrew Roth from the Club for Growth points out that often earmark spending is "air dropped" into conference reports after the House and Senate pass their versions of a bill. Roth cites spending on water projects in one budget increased over 60 percent thanks to government pork.
On top of that, take a look at the growth in pork spending since 1990. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, earmark spending increased from $4.7 billion in FY1991 to $30.4 billion in FY2006. Earmarks are clearly fueling increased spending, as appropriators continually raise budget caps to make room for more pork.
(While earmark spending has dipped due to partisan battles over the budget, do not expect this trend to continue now that the Democrats control Congress and the White House.)
Another reason Dr. Paul considers pork spending to be a red herring is that it only makes up 1 percent of the budget. He is once again correct. However, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), hardly a champion of restrained spending, notes how earmarks are used to get reluctant congressmen to support spending measures. Considering that nondefense spending is set to reach 23 percent of Gross Domestic Product, earmarks are very problematic if they sway Congress to sign off on such a reckless growth in government.
Since Dr. Paul often invokes the Founding Fathers when making his case on particular issues, it is important to note the disdain two of our most prominent Founders had on the type of spending Paul justifies. James Madison, in one of his last acts as president, vetoed a bill that contained funding for "internal improvements." Madison stated that to support such a measure would "have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one" and that signing off on this allows the federal government to embrace "every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust." Thomas Jefferson went even further, stating how federal funding of local projects triggers "a scene of scramble among the members [for] who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest."
Spending discipline is needed now more than ever. Budget caps need to be set low in order to weed out earmarks and to prevent the increased spending of bureaucrats. Anyone participating in the earmark process only serves to reinforce the upward spiral of irresponsible government growth.
Sources:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/upload/federalspendingbythenumbers2008.pdf
http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=090316_2757,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2ZhYTJjZmQ3NTAzMTZlMWJhMDkxZGJhMzlhYWExMWY=
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6286883.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnBoehner/2007/09/27/pork_barrel_stonewall?page=1
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/fund012306.asp
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/981.html
Print
Email
