The NY Times has a clever (if politically motivated) piece poking fun at the new Tea Party congressmen who publicly condemn earmarks but, nonetheless, are fighting for earmarks in their districts. These include bridges, beaches, harbor dredging, and military projects.
In defense of these projects the Republicans use the tried and true defense of “my earmark isn’t really an earmark.” Some say they are “merely providing constituent services.” Others argue that, yes, they are against earmarks, but their earmarks are “vital” or “critical.” Rep. Scott of South Carolina says his earmark is not an earmark because it is “open and transparent.” Rep. Duffy of Wisconsin and Rep. Bachmann of Minnesota (yes, that Bachman), say that the bridge they want to connect their districts is not an earmark because there are no specific costs or financing attached to the bill. Rep. Palazzo of Mississippi says the targetted defense programs he wants are not earmarks because, according to his staff, he did “not request funds for any specific project, but merely to transfer funds to increase spending on the programs.”
I’m quite perplexed at why unfunded or vague earmarks are better than actual appropriations. Doesn’t that make them kind of worse? And why does making a project transparent make it OK? Does not a rose, by any other name, smell just as sweet (or in this case, putrid)?
We need to get rid of not only earmarks (whatever those are), but any localized appropriations by the federal government, no matter how open and transparent the process may be. If a bridge or a beach or a harbor makes sense from a cost-benefit standpoint, then the states can go ahead and build them. It matters little whether the project comes about by bureaucratic fiat, by the normal appropriations process or by sneakyery of legislators. If the project can be geo-coded, it shouldn’t be a federal project.
What about externalities, such as interstate trucking? Some states have long roads, but few people. Similarly, some states have harbors that facilitate commerce in other states. Shouldn’t the federal government provide this needed infastracture since people in many states benefit? In general, no. Those who use these facilities should be charged for their use. This can occur through tolls, fees, and taxes. Projects whose benefits are greater than the costs can be funded by the states, and those that fail a cost-benefit test, which they almost all do, don’t deserve federal funding.
Other than facilitating trade and resolving disputes between states (what the Commerce Clause was really intended for) there is little if any role for the feds in local projects. Whether an appropriation is called an earmark or not is of little importance.
I would counter by saying that earmarks are not a problem. Earmarks are honest because when congress votes yea or nea, the electorate knows what they voted for. When they vote yea you know where the money is going.
Omnibus spending bills are just the opposite, they are the problem. Omnibus bills water down the responsibility for voting for a given level of spending. When Congress votes for an omnibus spending appropriation the electorate can’t be sure what they voted for. When the Congress votes yea, there is no telling where the money goes because a myriad of federal departments and agencies have a high degree of discretion over where the money goes.
What we need is for all appropriations to be earmarked.