No, but it does need to be better understood.
There is a growing frustration among conservatives that congressional spending is out of control. We share that frustration.
And nothing highlights Congress’ free-spending ways better than the battle over earmarks, special tags that dedicate money in the federal budget to this or that specific—and often ludicrous—spending project.
However, there appears to be a widespread presumption that if an earmark—such as that one for the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere”—is canceled, that means a reduction in overall federal spending. In other words, people think an earmark eliminated is federal money saved.
If only it were so. The fact is that when an earmark is eliminated the state still gets the money. The difference is that either state or federal bureaucrats, rather than an elected member of Congress, will decide how that money is spent.
Now, it’s possible a bureaucrat will do a better job of allocating the funds to the right places, but we aren’t holding our breath.
So an earmark isn’t new government spending, it just specifically directs how already-appropriated money will be spent in a state. And that explains why some congressmen aligned with conservative ideas and ideals haven’t joined the anti-earmark bandwagon.
It’s also one of the reasons why some of the anti-earmark warriors in Congress have recently taken a different approach: They are highlighting silly and wasteful earmarks and proposing to spend that money instead on a state’s infrastructure, such as deteriorating bridges.
It’s a reasonable proposal, and certainly better than raising taxes to fund a massive infrastructure renovation effort. There is plenty of money in the budget for such public works; all Congress has to do is restrain itself on pork-barrel earmarks and spend the money on infrastructure earmarks.
Count us as supporters of the anti-earmark movement, not because killing earmarks saves money, but because of the budget transparency they are trying to bring to the process. The earmark debate highlights how much money Congress spends—and how badly it spends it.
What is really at issue is government spending; that’s what really needs reform. If Congress were serious about cutting spending, all that earmarked money would never be in the budget in the first place.