I haven't commented much on earmarks, but an oped in today's Washington Post was has goaded me into action. A former Reagan Administration appointee (the Gipper must be spinning in his grave), who now makes a living by selling our money to the highest bidder, made several ridiculous assertions, including:
...earmarks are largely irrelevant to balancing the budget. The $16.5 billion Congress spent on earmarks in fiscal year 2009 sounds like a lot, but leaves a minuscule footprint - about 1 percent of 2009's $1.4 trillion deficit. Those seriously concerned about deficits should look elsewhere for meaningful spending reductions. ...On Capitol Hill, party leaders must appeal to lawmakers' interests as well as their principles to get the votes they need. The leaders must be able to offer incentives - such as earmarks - to win votes on difficult issues. Earmarks are not the only possible incentives, nor do they need to be the most compelling ones. But they are a tool for taking care of members who might otherwise stray.
The author is right that earmarks technically are not a big share of the budget. But he conveniently forgets to address the real issue, which is the degree to which earmarks are the proverbial apple in the congressional Garden of Eden. Members who otherwise might want to defend taxpayers are lured into becoming part of the problem. This is how I described the process in arecent PolitiFact article.
Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute, ...adds that the existence of earmarks increases the upward pressure on federal spending indirectly, since lawmakers "know they need to support the relevant powers on the spending committees in order to have their earmarks approved." Mitchell calls earmarks a "gateway drug" that "seduces members into treating the federal budget as a good thing that can be milked for home-state/district projects."
Since the author of the Washington Post column is trying, at least in part, to appeal to advocates of smaller government, I'm also puzzled that he says earmarks are good because they help grease the wheels so that more legislation can be passed. Does he really think reminding us about the "Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase" will make us more sympathetic to his argument? Yes, it's theoretically possible that congressional leaders will use earmarks to help pass legislation shrinking the burden of government. It's also possible that I'll play centerfield next year for the Yankees. But I'm not holding my breath for either of these things to happen.
Last but not least, earmarks are utterly corrupt. The fact that they are legal does not change the fact that they finance a racket featuring big payoffs to special interests, who give big fees to lobbyists (often former staffers and Members), who give big contributions to politicians. Everyone wins...except taxpayers.
This is one of the many reasons why I did this video a couple of years ago with the simple message that big government means big corruption.