Debate: Earmarks

[]

[]

[]

[]

Are earmarks valuable or should they be abolished?

Background and context

Earmarks in the United States have existed for a long time. The idea of directing federal money to specific local projects originally came from Rep. John Calhoun (D-S.C.) when he proposed the Bonus Bill of 1817 to construct highways linking the East and South of the United States to its Western frontier. Yet, the debate over earmarks really only took form as earmarking became a widespread form of government spending. Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent watchdog organization, has argued that widespread earmarking is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. The organization cites the evolution of earmarks since the 1970s. The 1970 Defense Appropriations Bill had a dozen earmarks; the 1980 bill had 62; and by 2005, the defense bill included 2,671. As this escalation of earmarks continued, the debate over the value of earmarks became increasingly prominent and relevant. During the 2008/2009 economic crisis and economic rescue packages, the widespread and massive scale of earmarking elevated the debate once again, with President Obama promising to cut back on earmarks.

• See Wikipedia's article on earmarks for more background.

[]

[]

[]

[]

Effectiveness: Do earmarks allocate spending effectively?

[]

Pro

• Earmarks allocate collective resources where it is needed most. It is important that our collective resources be spend on specific needs. Earmarks are a way to allow collective federal tax dollars to go to needed local projects. For the collective success of a nation, and the greatest good for the greatest number, such a allocation model is very important.

• Earmarks allow representatives to effectively apply local knowledge T.M. Sell. "A few kind words for earmarks". Cross Cut. February 9, 2009 - "for the most part, the officials charged with dispensing stimulus dollars will do the best they can with what they have, because they are in fact closer to the people and will catch hell if they don’t do their jobs. That is our system of government: federalism, which divides and shares power between the states and the national government. Amazingly, it still works. It’s not perfect; it never will be. But it lumps along with remarkable resiliency."

• Earmark spending is more competitive, targeted, and effective. Jonathan Rauch. "Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace". National Journal. March 14, 2009 - "Competition for funding, combined with flexibility and local knowledge, makes earmarks 'often some of the best expenditures the federal government makes in a particular area,' Lilly says. 'I would say, on the whole, earmarks probably provide as much value-added as non-earmarked federal spending.'"

[]

Con

• Legislators cannot fully examine all earmarks, leading to waste Steve Ellis of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense - "There's no way the Appropriations Committee is able to vet the thousands of earmarks worth billions of dollars."[1]

• Earmarks are often unrelated to legislation; holds up bill. Sometimes a good piece of legislation that receives the support of a majority of congressman will be held up and voted down purely on the basis that it contains an egregious, unrelated earmark. This undermines the democratic process, in which ideas are judged and voted on based on their own merits. It also opens the door to unfortunate political maneuvering, in which Congressmen insert unfavorable or controversial earmarks into a piece of legislation as a means of holding up a bill they oppose.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Democratic process: Do earmarks strengthen the democratic process?

[]

Pro

• Earmarks can help the passage of important legislation Earmarks can be used to assuage the concerns of legislators over elements of legislation, allowing the legislation to pass.

• Earmarks are part of a representative's duty to constituents. Rahm Emanuel. "Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks". New York Times. August 24, 2007 - "Some members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, eschew earmarks. That is their right. But most members believe it is their prerogative and their duty to channel federal resources to important public purposes."

• Earmarks are part of federalism/power-sharing between nation/states T.M. Sell. "A few kind words for earmarks". Cross Cut. February 9, 2009 - "for the most part, the officials charged with dispensing stimulus dollars will do the best they can with what they have, because they are in fact closer to the people and will catch hell if they don’t do their jobs. That is our system of government: federalism, which divides and shares power between the states and the national government. Amazingly, it still works. It’s not perfect; it never will be. But it lumps along with remarkable resiliency."

• Argument: Earmarks enable strong congressional check on executive spending "A few kind words for earmarks". Cross Cut. February 9, 2009 - "So it’s bemusing to hear people now complain that the federal stimulus package has little congressional mandate as to how it will be spent. Well, that’s in part because there are no earmarks in the bill."

• Opponents of earmarks unjustifiably bash government T.M. Sell. "A few kind words for earmarks". Cross Cut. February 9, 2009 - "The complaining about lack of congressional oversight in the stimulus package underscores the absurdity of the post-modern America polity: We brag about our freedom, democracy, and superior form of government, and yet relatively few Americans have any faith in it [including earmarks] or understand how it works. (And if we’re the greatest nation on earth, why do we have to keep telling everybody?)"

• Politicians bash earmarks to appear fiscally disciplined Bashing earmarks is part of a game played by politicians to appear to be fiscally disciplined and cutting-down on wasteful spending.

• Opponents of earmarks hypocritically engage in the practice. Eugene Elander. "So, what's wrong with earmarks?". Op Ed News. March 10, 2009 - "One of the ironies in the anti-earmark position is that often its strongest advocates are among the first to demand funds for projects in their own Congressional districts. Tabulations of earmarks in recent legislation show little difference between the amounts of funds asked by anti-earmark and pro-earmark legislators. As the Chinese say, empty rice barrels make the most noise. We seem to have a lot of those barrels in Congress."

[]

Con

• Earmarks cannot be fully examined during short period of exposure Steve Ellis of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense - "There's no way the Appropriations Committee is able to vet the thousands of earmarks worth billions of dollars."[2]

• Earmarks are often unrelated to legislation; undemocratic. Earmarks often have nothing to do with the actual substance of a piece of legislation, relating to something else entirely. This creates many problems. The most important problem is that votes on a piece of legislation may have nothing to do with whether a member of Congress supports a particular earmark found within. This means that earmarks may pass that have virtually no support of congressman and their constituents, virtually detaching the earmarks from the democratic process itself.

• Earmarks award funding based on politics not on merit. David Minge, former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. "The Case Against Academic Earmarking" - "Within the academic community, the earmarking process could become corrosive. At its logical extreme, faculty would be rewarded more for their role in politics than for developing sound research proposals. Assistant professors would be encouraged to put up lawn signs and distribute campaign literature to enhance their political influence with Members of Congress. Given the importance of fundraising, department heads, deans, and university presidents would be drawn into raising money for congressional races as a way of gaining the ultimate influence. We certainly do not want to go down that road."

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Transparency: Are earmarks sufficiently transparent?

[]

Pro

• Earmarks are more transparent than other spending programs Jonathan Rauch. "Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace". National Journal. March 14, 2009 - "Reformers who want to ban earmarking might think again. 'You're never going to abolish earmarks,' Moran says. 'What you'll wind up abolishing is the transparency, the accountability.' If unable to earmark, legislators will inveigle executive agencies behind the scenes, fry bureaucrats at hearings, and expand or rewrite entire programs to serve parochial needs. This, of course, is the way things worked in the bad old days. 'I think you'll wind up going back to that system,' Kolbe cautions."

[]

Con

• Earmarks lack transparency and competition David Minge, former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. "The Case Against Academic Earmarking" - "Earmarks are bad because they are obscure and do not face competitive review—except in the backroom politics of the Appropriations, Transportation, or other committees that engage in the process. Earmarks lack peer review and the scrutiny of public hearings. They are not included in the Administration’s budget. Often they originate in only one Chamber. Thus earmarks move below the radar."

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Waste: Do earmarks lead to excessive spending and waste?

[]

Pro

• Earmarks are just a targeted form of federal spending. Melissa Harris-Lacewell. "In Defense of Earmarks". The Nation. March 10, 2009 - "earmarks are not necessarily evil. [...] An earmark is just a way of describing a government funded project where the spending is designated for a particular group or location."

• One person's "pork" is another's valuable project. Eugene Elander. "So, what's wrong with earmarks?". Op Ed News. March 10, 2009 - "One person's earmark is another's vitally needed infrastructure project." Many call all earmarks that do not benefit them "wasteful", while accepting earmark funding for their own local needs as "necessary". "Waste" and "necessity" are in the eyes of the beholder. Because most earmarks do not benefit any given citizen, citizens often view nearly all earmarks as "wasteful".

• Earmarks often go toward important social works; not waste Tony Pearsall, a former police captain and city councilman in Vallejo, Arizona, said, "When you are dealing with kids, who are our future, how can you consider it pork or unreasonable spending?"[3] In general, many or even most earmarks go toward important social works, such as education, that cannot be considered "wasteful".

• Earmarks are a very small part of government spending Jonathan Rauch. "Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace". National Journal. March 14, 2009 - "As transparency has taken over, the case against earmarks has melted away. Their budgetary impact is trivial in comparison with entitlements and other large programs."

• Earmark spending is no worse than other forms of spending Jonathan Rauch. "Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace". National Journal. March 14, 2009 - "Some earmark spending is silly, but then so is some non-earmark spending, and there is a lot more of the latter."

• Focus on earmarks distracts from bigger spending issues Jonathan Rauch. "Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace". National Journal. March 14, 2009 - "Obsessing about earmarks, indeed, has the perverse, if convenient, effect of distracting the country from its real spending problems, thus substituting indignation for discipline."

[]

Con

• Earmarks foster a culture of spending excesses. David Minge, former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. "The Case Against Academic Earmarking" - "unfortunate is the symbolism of earmarking. In an era of large deficits it was easier to resist such spending. We needed discipline to balance the budget. Earmarks could not be afforded. Now with the surplus, we are threatened with an opening of the floodgates. It is hard to convince constituents of the need for restraint and fair play when word of earmarks leaks out."

• Earmarks are a nefarious tool for excessive defense spending. "The Problem with Earmarks". Charging RINO. July 19, 2006 - "Some stats: 'The number of earmarks in the annual defense spending bill increased from 587 worth $4.2 billion in fiscal 1994 to 2,506 worth $9 billion in fiscal 2005, according to a recent Congressional Research Service study. There were 231 'plus-ups' - the Navy's term for the money Congress adds for its members' pet projects - totaling nearly $600 million just in the Office of Naval Research budget in fiscal 2005, about a quarter of the total.' [...] This is a problem. And until members of Congress take serious steps to end their addiction to earmaking, it's not a problem that's going away."

• Earmarks create unsustainable institutional dependencies. David Minge, former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. "The Case Against Academic Earmarking" - "if institutions rely on earmarking, they face the vagaries of the political process in a much more capricious way. They risk the loss of their political patron. Members of Congress and the Senate move on. Those institutions that depend on a 'sugar daddy' may face a period of drought when their patron leaves. Recently Senator John Kerry (D-NE) said that the University of Nebraska lost $30 million per year when he retired. Indeed, his decision was a sad moment for faculty and staff at that institution."

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Abuse: Can abuse of earmarks be avoided?

[]

Pro

• Earmarks are not inherently bad; some are good, some bad Rahm Emanuel. "Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks". New York Times. August 24, 2007 - "Putting all earmarks in the same boat, as critics often do, distorts the debate and does a disservice to the public. Not all earmarks are equal. For six years, some members of Congress provided secret earmarks for lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions, foreign trips and, in some cases, outright bribes. The core of the problem was that the earmarks were hidden from the press and the public. There was no opportunity to review either their sponsorship or their merit before their passage."

• Earmarks should be reformed, but ban is unnecessary Rahm Emanuel. "Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks". New York Times. August 24, 2007 - "Democrats made earmark reform a campaign issue in 2006 — and a reality in 2007 — because earmarks were at the heart of corruption scandals in Washington. Democrats never promised to eliminate earmarks. We promisedto reform them."

• Earmarks have already been significantly reformed Rahm Emanuel. "Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks". New York Times. August 24, 2007 - "we cut the amount of spending on earmarks in half. In 1994, Congress approved 4,126 earmarks; by 2005, the number increased to 15,877. These reforms should end the abuses we saw in Congress over the past six years. [...] We remain committed to further reforms should they fail to do the job. [...] We pledged to clean up the abuses in the earmark process, and we kept that promise. I’ve been in politics long enough not to wait around for a pat on the back, but our reforms do not deserve a kick in the pants either. To ignore our reforms as if they never occurred and to criticize us for not ending a practice we never pledged to end is disingenuous."

[]

Con

• Earmarks are susceptible to bribery and corruption David Heath and Hal Bernton. "$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted". Seattle Times. October 14, 2007 - "Earmarks are federal dollars that members of Congress dole out to favor seekers — often campaign donors. In the process, lawmakers advocate for the companies, helping them bypass the normal system of evaluation and competition. This can result in earmarks that are wasteful or potentially harmful. [...] This can result in earmarks that are wasteful or potentially harmful."

• Earmarks are used by politicians to effectively buy votes. Jon Henke. "Why Earmarks are a Problem". March 13, 2008 - "Earmarks aren’t just corruption bait, though. They are also an Incumbent Slush Fund, allowing politicians to spread the pelf around their State/District to secure votes and favor. Perhaps we should start counting them as de facto campaign contributions. That’s exactly how they are used."

• Earmarks foster a selfish "bring-home-the-pork" mentality Robert Reich. "House of Ill-Repute: It's Time to Ban Earmarks". Common Dreams. September 12, 2006 - "The conventional view in the House is Americans really don't care about lobbying reform because they take corruption for granted, and it won't especially hurt Republicans (or benefit Democrats) this fall. According to this view, Americans think Congress is rotten to the core except when it comes to their own representative, who they consider a fine, upstanding person. The phenomenon is roughly analogous to what Americans think about education -- the system is terrible except their own schools, which are fairly good."

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Equality: Can earmarks be distributed equally?

[]

Pro

• Earmarks benefit all equally in the long-run. While it is true that some citizens will benefit from earmarks disproportionately from earmarks in any given year, that is OK. Some citizens may need it more in that period. But, over the long-run, all citizens will benefit from earmarked dollars, and roughly equally.

• Earmarks need not benefit all equally to be justified. There is no reason why earmarks must benefit all citizens equally, even if they do roughly achieve this objective in the long-run. Some citizens and communities have greater needs than others, even - sometimes - in the long-run. It would not be inherently unjust for a community that suffers from coastal erosion and flooding, for example, to receive more earmarked dollars than another community in the long-run.

[]

Con

• Earmarks divide federal tax dollars unequally. Earmarks are spending projects that take federal tax dollars, drawn from taxpayers across a nation, and spend them for isolated projects that benefit a very small and targeted group of people. This opens the door to federal tax dollars benefiting some groups more than others. With different levels of power among legislators and states, the potential for the unequal distribution of federal tax dollars is quite great.

• Earmarks benefit citizens with powerful legislators. As certain senior members of the legislative branch achieve greater sway and power, they are able to control and direct disproportionate swaths of federal taxpayer dollars toward their home state. This unfairly leaves citizens with less powerful legislators at a disadvantage.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Founding Fathers: did the founding fathers intend for earmarks?

[]

Pro

• Earmarks have been around since the beginning of US democracy. Bradford Plumer. "The liberal case for pork". The New Republic. September 12, 2006 - "Since the age of Jefferson, members of Congress have been earmarking money in spending bills for local projects that might not otherwise receive attention from federal agencies--and doing it to win votes back home. (James Monroe warned that pork would be 'productive of evil.')"

[]

Con

• Earmarks were not envisioned nor guaranteed by Founding Fathers. US Representative John Campbell. "The Case Against Congressional Earmarking". March 12, 2009 - "Despite all the evidence to the contrary and the vast opposition of the American people, here on FlashReport there continues to be Republicans arguing in favor of earmarks."

[]

[]

[]

[]

Pro/con sources

[]

Pro

• Jesse Walker. "The Case for Earmarks". Reason. March 14, 2009
• Jonathan Rauch. "Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace". National Journal. March 14, 2009
• Bradford Plumer. "The liberal case for pork". The New Republic. September 12, 2006
• Rahm Emanuel. "Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks". New York Times. August 24, 2007
• T.M. Sell. "A few kind words for earmarks". Cross Cut. February 9, 2009
• Steny H. Hoyer. "'Pork' doesn't fatten budget". USA Today. March 11, 2009
• Eugene Elander. "So, what's wrong with earmarks?". Op Ed News. March 10, 2009
• Melissa Harris-Lacewell. "In Defense of Earmarks". The Nation. March 10, 2009
• Howard Marlowe. "In Defense of Earmarks". The Hill. February 6, 2008
• "In Defense of Earmarks". Lew Rockwell Blog. August 27, 2008
• Stephanie Grace. "In Defense of Earmarks". The Times-Picayune. March 12, 2009
• John Feehery. "Reform, don't ban, earmarks". Politico. March 14, 2009

[]

Con

• US Representative John Campbell. "The Case Against Congressional Earmarking". March 12, 2009
• "Sen. DeMint Makes His Case Against Earmarks". The Swine Line. March 12, 2008
• David Minge, former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. "The Case Against Academic Earmarking"
• Citizens Against Government Waste
• David Heath and Hal Bernton. "$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted". Seattle Times. October 14, 2007
• Lawrence Lesig. "the wrong in earmarks". Lesig Blog. September 11, 2008
• "The Problem with Earmarks". Charging RINO. July 19, 2006
• Jon Henke. "Why Earmarks are a Problem". Qando. March 13, 2008

See also

• Debate: Earmarks must be relevant to legislation

External links

• Zachary Coile. "Congress spending vote stirs earmarks debate". San Francisco Chronicle. March 4, 2009