The tax and spend folks in Congress love “community project funding” – more commonly known as “earmarks.” These earmarks provide each member to grab a bit of taxpayer money to spend on a wide range of projects back home. In return, the member gets a political benefit. You will most likely see the congressman taking bows at some future ribbon-cutting ceremony.
Earmarks have been very controversial – with Democrats loving them and (most) Republicans not so much.
Other than to pump up a congressman’s political capital, there is no good purpose to be served by the earmark process – although a lot of members of congress will disagree emphatically.
The first problem is that earmarks are needlessly costly. There is no cost/benefit analysis. It operates more like Santa Clause than Uncle Sam. Folks back home give Santa … oh … I mean Uncle Sam their wish list – and like a workshop elf, the congressman provides the gift. (The Santa analogy is even more apt when you consider that the Jolly Old Man – like Uncle Sam — is not paying for all those goodies in his sack.)
A second problem with earmarks is that in many cases, there is no good reason why the national treasury should be used to fund many of the projects. Congress already uses the budgeting and appropriations processes to provide funds for major public works projects – such as tertiary treatment plants and airports. There are funds to support private-sector business start-ups – such as apartment buildings and factories. There are grants for almost everything.
Earmarks are used more for what one might call “pet projects” – things that the local community or even the state should handle. Uncle Sam should not be the first choice – or even the last resort. These projects often include civic memorials, museums, and theaters.
Earmarks can be used to provide a congressman with naming rights. You should check out how many locations are named after a member of Congress – buildings and parks. Some of that political advertising was purchased with earmarks.
There are limits to earmarks. It is currently one percent of discretionary spending (about 30 percent of the federal budget). That may sound like a small amount, but it is a LOT of money – somewhere between $15 to $18 billion dollars. That is about $35 million per member.
As part of the GOP’s efforts to reduce federal spending, House Speaker McCarthy is proposing a change in the guidelines that will cut the earmarks in half – to one-half of one percent of discretionary spending.
In addition, the Republican plan would essentially ban the funding of projects with names of individuals or organizations. (Let them pay for their own advertising). It will also ban funding for “memorials, museums, and commemoratives.”
Under the new rules, members who wish to steer money to their pet projects would have to provide a written statement indicating how the project justifies federal spending. To ensure that each project has a federal justification, only projects that qualify under federal authorization law will be funded.
While traditionally, earmarks are attached to almost any appropriation legislation like tinsel on a Christmas tree, the new guidelines will prohibit earmarks on the appropriation bills for Defense, Health and Human Services, and Labor, among others.
The sound you hear is a lot of Democrats caterwauling. They are calling the earmarks “essential.”
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CN) – the senior minority member on the House Appropriations Committee, said that earmarks are “opportunities for members to help people in their districts and to meet urgent needs directly”. She pointed to hospitals, blood centers, and universities. But the big spenders always declare every dollar spent as essential – a matter of life or death.
Of course, the GOP proposal does not end earmarks but requires a higher standard of need. There will still be sufficient money to spread around to the places DeLauro cited. And one really needs to question whether universities – with their exorbitant tuition rates and huge endowment funds – need the money.
A little belt-tightening in Washington is not only a good thing, it is an essential thing.
So, there ‘tis.