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.
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
