Congressional Earmarks

On a practical level, we have heard people say that earmarks provide practical benefits not only to people in the area, but the entire country. After all, if one area benefits, the entire country benefits. A bit more analysis shows the flaws in that notion. Supposedly, all federal spending benefits the entire country from job creation, so even if the benefits are concentrate in one area, the whole country benefits from the jobs it creates. OK, if you want to argue that, then why not spend that money instead more efficiently. Earmarks are by definition inefficient. The fact that earmarks go around the authorization process suggests that they would not survive a cost-benefit analysis. To do some more practical examples, why are we earmarking transportation dollars when we still have structurally deficient bridges to repair? Why are we earmarking health and human services dollars when we still have uninsured children? Why are we earmarking homeland security dollars when high-risk places such as nuclear and chemical plants remain unguarded? Why are we earmarking interior dollars when we are not prepared for forest fires? Why are we earmarking Defense dollars when we aren't even able to guarantee sufficient body armor for our troops? Why are we earmarking education dollars when we still have underperforming schools? I could go on and on and on. Some will respond that earmarks help representatives get funding for such projects, and some earmarks may go to that, but they are missing the bigger picture. We should spend money on these things, but they should be competitively bid based on merit. For example, let's say some earmarks are repairing structurally deficient bridges. Why is the money not being appropriated on a cost-benefit analysis? If the Congress wants to spend money to fix structurally deficient bridges and has the money for it, why isn't it competitively bid? It could make the decisions based on how structurally deficient a bridge is, how many people it serves, and so on. That would be spending money efficiently, as opposed to earmarking, which bypasses such process. The country would still benefit from jobs being created, and we'd get more bang for the buck. Second, those who argue that earmarks are a net gain are forgetting that the federal government cannot give a single dollar to one area without taking it away from another. For example, if I take a dollar from Area 1 and invest it in Area 2, yes, the people in Area 2 now have one more dollar invested in their quality of life and it will likely help. However, the people in Area 1 now have one less dollar invested in their quality of life. Mathematically speaking, that amounts to zero. Actually, it amounts to less than zero for two reasons. One, some bureaucrats in D.C. are getting paid to process that dollar's trip though D.C. and two, spending decisions that would be made on the local level where the costs and benefits are both concentrated and therefore more likely to be spent wisely are now being decided on the federal level with costs being dispersed. Whenever the costs are dispersed while the benefits are concentrated, you're going to get less efficient expenditures. For example, let's say you could have a brand new Segway. You look at the price tag, and it's over $5,000 so you decide not to get it. But then you hear that everyone in the country will pay equally for it, and you get to own it. In other words, the benefits of it are concentrated to you, but the costs are dispersed among the entire country. You're now paying less than a penny for it, so of course you'll say, "Sure." What previously did not make sense for you to buy now makes sense because you're footing much less of the bill. The result is money spent less efficiently. Along with the dispersing of costs, earmarking involves spending public money on political calculations. Earmarks have disproportionately benefited Congressmembers who have been in office a long time, that are on certain committees, what party they are in (typically 60-40 majority-minority), and if they have a tough reelection fight going on. Coincidence? I think not. Does anyone really think the federal government knows better on what a local area needs than a local government? Some say it's only 1% of the Federal budget, or about $18 billion, and that is true, but that's $18 billion we could be spending to repair structurally deficient bridges, get proper body armor for our troops, insure more children, prevent forest fires, help our underperforming schools, and properly secure more vulnerable terrorist targets. This feeds right into the constitutional arguments. We elect our members of Congress to do many things, collecting earmarks is not one of them. Article I Section 8 allows Congress to tax and spend to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. The 10th Amendment says that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved for the states and the people. The courts have ruled that general welfare expenditures are limited to matters of national welfare as opposed to state or local welfare. You can argue that many expenditures, such as overpaying for weapon systems and so on, do not help the national welfare either, so earmarks are not the only thing. Such is true, but in those other cases, the expenditures incidentally do not help the national welfare. The principle behind the spending is for matters of national welfare. Earmarks, in principle are not spending for the national welfare. Again, earmarks, by definition, escape the process of determining whether they are a national priority and are inserted into the bill regardless of their merit. To use the structurally deficient bridges example again, if Congress was to determine that structurally deficient bridges put the entire country at risk, which is true, and wanted to spend money to repair them, it could allocate the money based on those calculations I said earlier: how structurally deficient the bridge is, and how many people drive on it regularly. Or for homeland security, base it on the risk of the various targets and how many people an attack would likely hurt. That would be spending for the national welfare and within their constitutional role, but the second Congress spends money that it knows is not for the national welfare or common defense, it has overstepped its constitutional role. Finally, the moral reasons. We hear the argument often that they are called representatives for a reason; they are there on behalf of their constituents so it follows that they try to bring back as much money as possible. Well, not exactly, we elect them to represent our views on national matters within their constitutional role. Collecting earmarks is not within their constitutional role. Congressmembers have every right to argue for why a project in their state should be funded, they have every right to justify it through the authorization process, and at the end of the day, Congress as a whole is supposed to vote to spend money for the national welfare. To use the bridge example again, congressmembers have every right to argue for funding repair of their bridge, and put it on the table, but Congress as a whole is supposed to decide which bridges get funding based on the national welfare, not based on any particular congressmember. Or homeland security grants, Congressmembers can put a place in their district on the table, argue for why its security should be funded, but out of those places put on the table, Congress should appropriate the funds based on which places are the riskiest. If skyscrapers and the Louisiana levees can only get funding because their congressmember has been in Congress for a while, something is seriously wrong with the system.