Earmarks Are Back. The GOP’s Enthusiasm Is Worrying.

It might be the right decision in the abstract, but in reality it’s a little sickening.

By
73

A decade ago, one of the first things Republicans did after taking back the House of Representatives was get rid of earmarks. For those of you who don’t recall, “earmark” is the term of art for when members of Congress bring home the bacon to their district. The GOP was in a Tea Party-ish mood back then, and getting rid of “bridges to nowhere,” etc., was all the rage. 

At the time, I thought the earmark ban was an encouraging sign of reform. But in recent years, I’ve changed my mind somewhat. Yes, the practice had gotten out of control, and it drove some corrupt practices. But if the issue was runaway spending and debt, getting rid of earmarks was always more symbolic than serious. The main drivers of our national debt have always been entitlements, not road projects or ice skating rinks. 

If the price of getting Congress to implement serious entitlement reforms was a gold-plated monorail in every congressional district, it would be well worth it. Besides, who’s to say that a politician in constant contact with his district’s voters and civic leaders won’t have a better understanding of what his or her community needs than some bureaucrat a thousand miles away?

Also, getting rid of earmarks didn’t get rid of spending. As my American Enterprise Institute colleague Kevin Kosar documents in a new report, “Restoring the power of the purse: Earmarks and re-empowering legislators to deliver local benefits,” Congress still allocated money for transportation projects, community rec centers, scientific studies, etc. It’s just that the legislative branch gave up a lot of those decisions. Bureaucrats and political appointees in the executive branch got to decide where the goodies went. Getting rid of earmarks made almost no difference at all, and in some cases discretionary spending went up after the moratorium.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
73
By
Comments (73)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Kurt Von Fuchs

    One of the things the pandemic showed was how fragile the bottom 30% are. I think they were things in the Covid relief package that will not directly related to Covid or directly related to helping the body and 30% which isn't a bad thing

    Collapse
  2. TragicMishap

    Why doesn't somebody check out the way most state governments handle this issue? Isn't that what federalism is supposed to do? Be the laboratory?

    Collapse
  3. Brad Beyenhof

    Is there a reason I didn't get this one emailed to me with my Dispatch subscription? I subscribe to The Dispatch and The G-File, but this article didn't show up in my email. I only found it when visiting the website. Several other Goldberg articles, like "The Election Was Secure. Why Rush Electoral Reform?" and "Is It Really Too Hard for Comedians to Joke About Joe Biden?" have suffered a similar fate.

    Collapse
  4. Tim Hollingsworth

    Pork provides the grease that lubricates the gears of our legislative system.

    I am much swayed by the argument that allocation of resources is better decided through transparent negotiations between elected representatives than soley through the executive bureaucracy. It may be ugly but it is how our system was designed to function. Corruption is much harder to hide in a legislative process than in an administrative office.

    This will be an especially important feature if the country actually does move forward with way overdue investments in infrastructure.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

    Great.

    Collapse
  6. Jake

    It is concerning that members are so excited about earmarks; however, earmarks are a double-edged sword. Earmarks allow members to exercise their power of the purse and direct appropriations to the projects. Members know what their districts need, and now have the ability to deliver for constituents. On the other side, egregious use of earmarks shed a light on the character of a member and allow constituents the ability to vote on that behavior. If a members constituents do not believe that a particular spending project is not necessary for the district, they can vote them out. As Jonah correctly pointed out, America’s long term fiscal issues are based in entitlement spending, not the building of an off ramp on I-95. Republicans mistakenly gave the Obama Administration the ability to direct spending in 2010, and have rightfully voted to take back the power of directed spending into their own hands.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    The issue isn't spending or income. The issue is there are too many people, most of whom are hard working, that cannot afford basic needs they require. You may say a person who can't afford surgery shouldn't get it, but we don't live in a 3rd world country where we're going to let people die from easily treatable injuries. You can say they too much money goes to schools and tell people their children will probably be less capable of getting by than you. Unfortunately the days when working class Americans can raise a family and save for old age and provide all the things considered necessary are gone. Most of these people live in states with small towns and moderate industry and do not earn enough. So the government has to intervene. Raising wages just sends businesses overseas.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    "If the price of getting Congress to implement serious entitlement reforms was a gold-plated monorail in every congressional district, it would be well worth it."

    You're so funny, Jonah.

    Collapse
    1. Ingenero.lux

      https://youtu.be/taJ4MFCxiuo

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Phil H

    "It might be the right decision in the abstract, but in reality it’s a little sickening."

    It's only the "right decision" in the short term -- to get Congress to do its job. But that shouldn't take bringing home the pork via earmarks.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    The idea that it's "good" for Conservative causes that the Republicans will trade their portion of pork to achieve their policy objectives rests on the false assumption that the Republican party is conservative in any way.

    The GOP is a nationalist-populist party, and they exist in a polarized country, meaning most lawmakers only have to win their primary in order to take office. And the GOP no longer operates as a nationwide party focused on winning a majority overall, rather, they are a disconnected collection of lawmakers focused on winning their primary election without regard to, or even to the detriment of, the overall brand of their party. (E.g. zero outreach to Democratic voters after they lost the election).

    With the Republicans going populist, the Democrats *must* answer with equally populist policies--and I daresay they'd be in a panic to do so: suddenly their traditional opponent has *reversed* their attack. Back in the day, Democrats had to push up against Republican calls for fiscal austerity. Now it's a race to the bottom.

    The hope for Conservatives always lies in most conservative party currently able to conceivably take power. Right now, on the balance, that party is the Democrats--by far. Both parties are going to do earmarks, so the question is which one will be corrupt in their way of going about it and which one won't. Right now the party of corruption is the GOP.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Earl King

      Not to burst your ballon. There are 27 GOP governors. 23 States have Legislatures controlled by GOP. In Congress, in a year that Joe Biden won the Presidency GOP picked up seats in the House. I may be slightly wrong in the exact number but is something like 48,000 votes changed hands Trump would be President? Dems are currently poised to steal only one seat.
      GOP needs like 6 or 7 more seats to control the House. Generally the out of power party picks up seats in an off Presidential election year. You are pretending the GOP has become a small off shoot party. The facts do not say that. I get your antipathy towards the GOP. But you cannot draw facts from thin air. All the above is your opinion and not based on reality. You are holding on to a cartoonish version of the GOP. Time will tell but your presumption the GOP will never win another election is likely wrong. As always it depends on the candidates. I will say if the GOP runs Trump agains they will likely lose.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        I don't understand what this has to do with my comment... I don't think I made any predictions about the 2022 race nor would I.

        I am also not making any predictions about how effective the Republican strategy is going to be overall, but only pointing out that they don't really have an "overall" strategy anymore. It might work, it might not. We'll see. It probably depends on how the Democrats do more than anything else.

        Collapse
Load More