Earmarks 101 - Pork Barrells or Democracy in Action

As the US elections heat up I thought I'd write a short primer for my Canadian friends and delve into the issue of Earmarks. What are Earmarks? Are they controversial and if so, why are they controversial? And of course I will try to add my own brand of political humour and opinion.

An Earmark is defined by Wikipedia as: congressional provisions that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that direct specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Earmarks can be found in both legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding. Typically, legislators seek to insert earmarks which direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.

Like most governments, bureaucrats in the United States prepare annual budgets that contain essential program-based spending. Most of these programs are carried forward and this "Base Budget" contains nearly 90percent of US Government spending. In 2007, Congressional Earmarks totalled 10.4 Billion dollars. These funds include umbrella contracts that approve ongoing purchases and that may or may not be accessed in a given budgetary year. These funds include money for normal capital upkeep of well, the Capitol. Often programs that have become ineffective, bloated or simple failures continue to have funding allocated. The Base Budget is the Bureaucrat's budget. Earmarks are one way that politicians (and by extension electors) can influence the political process. In fact, controlling purse strings may be the single-most important way that politicians and bureaucrats exert influence and power.

To give you an idea of what might be funded through an Earmark, the company I formerly worked for had a strategy to identify a source for a Federal Earmark to run a demonstration project of our Road User Charging system. Our product is innovative but potentially too expensive for a local government to pursue alone. Federal programs have all been directed to a program authorized by President Bush's Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters. Bureaucrats therefore held sole discretion over the redirection from their original, publicly approved intent. Given the President's flailing popularity numbers one wonders how legitimate that practice is (as much as I like Secretary Peters.)

While a famous Earmark was directed towards a bridge 'to nowhere' (I thought Ketchican was a huge tourist destination - maybe the Americans are using a Hunter S. Thompson Fat City-strategy to keep people away from Alaskan cruises, but I digress) most are for much smaller projects that might not be a top priority but definitely have public support and/or value. Another proposal getting heat is Senator Arlen Spector's attempt to get $100,000 for the United Jewish Federation of Pittsburgh for a 'Naturally Occuring Retirement Community. Hilary Clinton came under fire for her support of aWoodstock Museum. Senator Patty Murray of Washington has drawn heat for a $150,000 grant for the Northwest Electrical Industry Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee for expanded training capability, acquisition of training equipment, and to meet the need for skilled electrical workers. I know: How dare they?

So...here's the gist. Many people figure that Earmarks are bad simply because they are not pre-approved by a bureaucrat. But America is the world's greatest democracy, or so we're reminded daily. If bureaucrats ultimately control the spending of tax dollars though, what is the role of the elected representative? Rules of conduct and procedure often preclude politicians from getting directly involved on their constituents' behalf relative to government decisions to refuse funding. Abuse of such rules lead to things like the Canadian Liberal Party's 'Sponsorship scandal.' We're therefore left with a number of questions.

What is the role of the politician? Is it to simply set rules? Or is the ability of a politicain to reward those who support them a legitimate power? Is it legitimate, within a larger budget/financial control system, for a politician to nominate a local cause or project to receive federal funding above what may have already been allocated? I would argue that it is legitimate for a politician to advocate (including moving Motions and earmarking) for causes and projects they have previously and openly supported. It is the role of the larger democratic institution to decide if the funding for that project is appropriate and in the interest of the larger population. Obviously, an Earmark for Iowans against all other Americans probably should not be funded by the US Congress. But an Earmark for Iowa Corn Farmers for Ethanol Alternatives is probably in the National interest, particularly if their research led to a reduction in the dependence on foreign oil and a ton of other positive effects.

I do not buy the argument that Earmarks are not made appropriately procedurally. A procedure exists and it is up to the politicians to know the rules and to do what they can to eliminate specific earmarks they don't agree with - not to eliminate earmarks wholly, throwing the babes out with the Hot Tub water.

So, now that you've read this you're hopefully with me...what's the big deal?

There is no big deal. In fact, the biggest deal about Earmarks is how overblown this issue has become. Politicians are tilting at windmills and its causing them trouble. Governor and would-be Vice President Sarah Palin is a great example. As Governor, she was trying to accomplish things for her citizens who pay taxes to the federal government. Now, as a 'Straight Talking' Republican, she is opposed to earmarks. This is a classic example of the problem with people painting Earmarks as 'Good' or 'Evil'. One woman's junk...

So...that's enough for now - I'm trying to keep blogs short and plentiful. Feel free to post comments as I don't have all the answers and always learn from other perspectives.