As a key congressional supporter goes, so usually goes the earmark. Savage does give credence to motives for earmarks other than gaining equity in competing for federal funds, notably weaknesses in federal support for the construction and operation of research facilities. Certainly, the academic community made it plain in the context of severe pressures on the federal research budget that it did not support facilities at the expense of funds for research projects. Earmarking goes big time Columbia got its money, which was taken out of Department of Energy funds intended for Yale University and the University of Washington. All the while, they have aggressively encouraged the expansion of earmarking by promising universities, some of them eager, others reluctant, for the scarce dollars needed for their most desired research projects and facilities.
Fees are high, but there seemed to be few complaints.
During the 1980s and into the 1990s, several legislative efforts to control academic earmarking were launched but failed. And although there have been occasional noises in the press about earmarks, they are, in Savage's view, so much spitting into the wind. Efforts have been made to reduce the incentive to seek earmarks by appropriating funds specifically for those states that receive little federal research money. Although the goal of the program is commendable, I am aware of no evidence that it has discouraged earmarking. He offers sympathetic interpretations of actions where it might have been easy to simply hammer away, especially at the more greedy players.