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.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. For over 30 years, The American Prospect has delivered independent reporting that exposes corporate power, investigates political corruption, and analyzes threats to our democracy. Unlike many media outlets, we’re not owned by billionaires or corporations—we’re powered by readers like you.
Today’s independent journalism faces unprecedented challenges. Your support makes our reporting possible and keeps our work free and accessible to all. Whether it’s $5 or $50, every contribution helps sustain our nonprofit newsroom.
Join our community of supporters and make a donation today to help keep independent journalism thriving.
Copyright 2025 | The American Prospect, Inc. | All Rights Reserved