×
Brookings' Thomas Mann is tired of the diversionary fracas surrounding earmarks:
Earmarks constitute less than 1 percent of the federal budget. In most cases, they don’t add to federal expenditures but merely allow Congress to direct a small fraction of program funding that would otherwise be allocated by formula or grant competition. Abolishing all earmarks would therefore have a trivial effect on the level of spending and budget deficits. While earmark reform and reduction is a worthy cause, it is a relatively minor one. It would do nothing to slow the rate of federal spending or improve our long-term budget outlook. Moreover, hyperbolic attacks on earmarks do a disservice to the public, encouraging people to concentrate way too much attention and energy on a largely symbolic issue and ignore the critical decisions that we face in the months and years ahead.Representative James Clyburn goes even further in the Politico. Earmarks, he argues, are a good thing. This system of government we have, the one where we elect congressmen from different districts, is built to ensure that federal funds are responsive to local needs. Earmarks are that process in action.It used to be that I'd link to Earmark Watch's interactive map which lists earmarks by district. But that seems to be down. So if you want to page through the earmarks that are giving everyone such heartburn, head over to the Appropriations Committee web site and download the "statements" portion of the Omnibus bill's various sections. Most people, when digging through these lists, end up surprised by how worthy the majority of the projects prove. Sometimes, of course, earmarks fund the comically parochial: You can read about those projects on John McCain's twitter feed. But more often, they're sensible local priorities. Pat Roberts of Kansas secures $250,000 so Topeka, Kansas can "establish a secure database that connects law enforcement and emergency management personnel to private sector resources needed in a catastrophic event." Congressman Ralph Hall appropriates $143,000 for a "drop-out prevention program" in Mount Pleasant, Texas. Congressman Bill Foster gets $76,000 for "occupational training programs" at Sauk Valley Community College in Sauk, Illinois. "May include equipment," specifies the earmark. These appropriations rarely make McCain's twitter feed, of course. But they're the reality of the practice. Irony Update: According to a document floating around the House of Representatives, Ron Paul has requested over $126,000,000 in earmarks.
