The Washington Post took its crusade against earmarks to the front page yesterday, highlighting the earmarks supported by the leading presidential candidates. Obviously the Washington Post really really doesn't like earmarks, but is there any reason that the general public should share its obsessions?
The article never puts the size of the earmarks discussed into any context, thereby leading readers to wrongly believe that congressional earmarks are a major factor in the federal budget and the deficit. For example, it could have described the earmarks supported by Obama as 0.003 percent of the federal budget or alternatively their cost is 30 cents per person in tax dollars per year.
Another useful metric is the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The earmarks supported by Senator Obama are equal to 0.05 percent of the cost of these wars. The money committed to these earmarks would fund the wars for about 5 hours.
Unlike many news organizations, the Prospect has remained staunchly committed to keeping our journalism free and accessible to all. We believe that independent journalism is crucial for a functioning democracy—but quality reporting comes at a cost.
This year, we’re aiming to raise $75,000 to continue delivering the hard-hitting investigative journalism you’ve come to expect from us. Your support helps us maintain our independence and dig deeper into the stories that matter most.
If you value our reporting, please consider making a contribution today. Any amount helps secure our future and ensure we can continue holding power to account.
