Earmarks for All
Earmarks for All
An earmark is “congressional funding for a specific local project.”
The way earmarks work is a legislator adds text to an appropriations bill like…
Hey, of this $90 billion going to the Department of Transportation I want $1M to go to a parade in my district.
People defend earmarks by saying…
1. They’re tradition…
I have been a fan of earmarks since I got here the first day. Keep in mind, that’s what the country has done for more than 200 years, except for the brief period of time in recent years that we haven’t done these. — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), 2014
But what they are is unconstitutional.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; — Article I, Section 8
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. — James Madison
If the general welfare clause, the commerce clause, and the 10th amendment are going to mean anything then Congress shouldn’t be able to fund “narrow interests” like a small intrastate project.
Just as we’d consider it unconstitutional to only pass a tax on Jim it shouldn’t be able to do the inverse on the spending side by only passing a subsidy for him or his “non-profit.”
And earmarks really didn’t take off until the 1980’s.
This week the Congress sent me a highway construction bill that was loaded with pork-barrel projects. I haven’t seen so much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair. — Ronald Reagan (R), 1987
Congressional Republicans then banned them in 2011, which helped them succeed at their larger goal of reducing discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP.
But Congressional Democrats brought them back in 2021.
2. They grease the legislative gears to make it easier to pass bills.
Our system lends itself to not getting things done, and I hear so much about earmarks — the old earmark system — how there was a great friendliness when you had earmarks. But of course, they had other problems with earmarks. But maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks. [Lindsey Graham: Yeah!] — Donald Trump (R), 2018
Maybe this is not a popular opinion but if you're using earmarks to buy off people like Joe Manchin so that they'll actually support decent policy I’m totally fine with it. — Commentator Krystal Ball, 2021
Look, it’s easy to hate on earmarks. Members stuffing pet projects into legislation isn’t exactly the way we all envisioned government working in civics class in high school. But without them, government simply doesn’t work at all. — CNN Commentator Chris Cillizza, 2021
Earmarks may marginally help big unread bills pass, but isn’t it a bad thing to streamline such corrupt incompetent consolidation?
Rather than try to make crap go down smoother, I’d prefer to go back to the pre-earmark era when budgets were smaller, read, and passed on time.
After all, don’t you think asking Senator Joe Schmoe to agree to a $3T bill by giving him $10M is how we end up with worse bills because legislators would be basing less of their vote on the core substance of them?
3. The money is being spent anyway.
Cut all the earmarks in the world tomorrow and it would not reduce the budget by one cent. — Bernie Sanders (D), 2010
Technically, earmarks don’t spend new money as much as they’re more clearly defining how money that’s already been allocated should be spent.
But federal bureaucrats aren’t so dumb that they won’t realize earmarks are cutting into their budgets so they’ll just anticipate how much earmarks will be and then ask over and above that amount because if they don’t then the implication would be that they never needed the money to begin with.
Earmarks also add a new layer of inefficiency where citizens are incentivized to lobby their representatives, representatives have to listen to more lobbying, and bureaucrats have to divert attention/appropriations from their traditional merit-based process to say figuring out how to install a new traffic light on some local road a mile from a congressperson’s house. Long-term, this additional appropriations “process” will undeniably increase costs.
4. Legislature > Executive
It’s the responsibility of Congress to earmark. That's our job. We're supposed to tell the people how we're spending the money, not to deliver it in a lump sum to the executive branch and let them deal with it. — Ron Paul (R), 2009
My belief is that members of Congress elected from 435 districts around the country know, frankly, better than those who may be in Washington what their districts need. — House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D), 2020
This is more of a philosophical difference I have with earmark defenders, which I’ll refute by asking you a simple question…
Who’s your congressperson?
If you don’t care enough to know who your congressperson is then you can’t responsibly argue for giving him more power.
As a conservative, I believe in a small federal government with a big president. Presidents are more accountable because they win by smaller margins and care more about their legacy than holding onto power indefinitely. The market also demonstrates that strong executives tend to be more effective than “workplace democracies.”
5. They make a bill less bad
I’ve never voted for an earmark, but I do argue the case for the people I represent to try to get their money back if at all possible. — Ron Paul (R), 2011
Some legislators add earmarks to get back as much money for their district as possible, but then vote against the bill anyway. Earmark defenders call this, “vote no and take the dough”…
Many of the Republicans who are criticizing earmarks have earmarks in the bill! That is the height of hypocrisy. — Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D), 2010
Accusing the other side of hypocrisy is always an easy way to feel morally superior while deflecting from core policy concerns. In other words, the “you also fallacy” is like a rhetorical earmark.
It isn’t hypocritical though if you partake in something while wishing to abolish it, e.g. electoral college, filibuster, student loans. It’s only hypocritical if you partake in it yet condemn other individuals who do too.
X = X (hypocrisy), X ≠ XYZ (similar).
But to Ron Paul’s discredit, he put in all earmark requests.
I have a responsibility to represent my people. If they say, ‘Hey, put in a highway for the district.’ I put it in. I put in all their [earmark] requests because I'm their representative. — Ron Paul (R), 2012
In other words, he shifted discretion to the congressional leadership’s staff whereas if he genuinely believed the legislature should earmark then he should’ve led by example via demonstrating it intelligently.
Earmarks can ultimately make a bill less bad, but they make our political system worse for all the aforementioned reasons as well as they help corrupt moderate incumbents beat principled primary challengers while increasing their ability to pressure freshmen to also abandon their principles for pork. Drain the swamp! Don’t dam it!
