Earmarks

Earmarks

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has a piece in the National Review Online today about earmarks, a subject that's been puzzling me lately. Sen. Coburn joins Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and 12 other conservative senators, including the new Tea Party candidates, in pushing an earmark ban:

1. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.)
2. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
3. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
4. Mike Lee (R-Utah)
5. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
6. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)
7. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
8. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.)
9. John Cornyn (R-Tex.)
10. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
11. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
12. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)

The Deficit Commission also supports an earmark ban. The prospective new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), does not.

The argument against an earmark ban usually goes like this: the money's going to get appropriated anyway, so wouldn't you rather have your own congressmen decide what project it will be spent on than some bureaucrat sitting on a panel in an executive branch controlled by the other party? What's more, earmarks the tail wagging the dog: they're a small fraction of overall spending.

Sen. Coburn's argument is that "a small rudder can help steer a big ship." As one commenter noted, earmarks are bribe solicitation. The point of many earmarks is not to appropriate funds for a specific project that really is important on national grounds (which would be the only legitimate reason for using federal money rather than local funds), but an out-and-out bribe to secure a vote for some completely separate measure that may dwarf the earmark itself in terms of cost and intrusiveness. Use of the Cornhusker Kickback to obtain a vote for ObamaCare is a recent and glaring example.

Sen. Coburn quotes Thomas Jefferson, who predicted that federally funded local projects would "be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest." He adds: "Thomas Jefferson understood that earmarks and coercion would go hand in hand." Coburn also argues that

earmarks are a convoluted way for Congress to try to regain authority they have already ceded to the executive branch through bad legislation. The fact is there is nothing an earmark can do that can't be done more equitably and openly through a competitive grant process.

It's not clear to me that the feds ought to be funding anywhere near as many local projects as they do. If they must, I'd prefer they made block grants to the states and let the states work out where to spend the money. Even better, they could stop collecting federal taxes for this kind of thing and let the states decide how much to tax and spend on local projects. The only exceptions should be truly federal projects, like military bases, the location of which should be determined by some much more transparent process than backroom pork-barrel rolling. I'd rather my federal congressmen spent more time worrying about getting the federal government to keep its mitts out of local affairs, and less about bringing federal largesse to my district -- particularly when I'm the one paying for the federal largesse in the first place.