Sow's Ear

Over the years, in local papers, I've seen many a story announcing that Senator or Representative Soandso secured some money to restore a bridge, build a park, whatever. Don't recall angry letters in response. I bet you could say the same.

I think the record will show I've never railed against earmarks in this blog except, perhaps, to have pointed out Sarah Palin's hypocrisy on the matter. The fact is, getting federal money into their districts is what politicians of all flavors do; it's expected by their constituents, and it gets them reelected. Nor is it in all ways a bad thing: without taking the time to look up a bunch of them, things we call earmarks aren't universally frivolous, at least not always, not by definition. Still, when I heard the president's budget (as opposed to the stimulus plan) contains "9,000 earmarks," I didn't like it. Even when I heard 40% of the earmarks are claimed by Republicans, and even though they represent less than 1% of the money in the bill.

It's like a gimme to John McCain, who leapt at the opportunity. Even though I'm quite certain many of the projects receiving money are worthy, like the tattoo removal program I already mentioned, I think it looks bad. The inference from the preceding link -- and I feel sure it's true -- is that Obama was pressured by Reid and Pelosi to keep them in. It's their lifeblood. And the President needs to work with them, as have all presidents with all Congri. (Meanwhile, of course, the Republican earmarkers get a free ride: McCain's most righteous anger was aimed at the President; his compatriots who wrote the bill and/or presumed on the writers, not so much.) We'll never know (thankfully), but I have a hard time believing a President McCain would have succeeded in eliminating earmarks. He said he'd veto any bill containing them; but if he did, do you think his future agenda would be well-received? Can you say "stalemate?" Bush made a couple of feeble attempts, too, and was soundly rejected by Congressional Republicans. It's the air they breathe.

During the campaign, McCain highhorsed against earmarks as if they embodied everything that ails the economy, as did Palin (she, the successful seeker thereof). Get rid of them, and everything else will be fine (especially when "the fundamentals of the economy are strong.") Because no one ever really challenged the concept, the idea of earmarks as bad and bedevilled has stood, unanalyzed. It's easy pickings for the reflexively offended. And it's perfect campaign fodder: over-simplified and under-stood.

It would be a service to the country, if for no other reason than to eliminate at least one of a million or so annoying campaign issues, if there were an actual honest discussion about earmarks, by the people who produce and receive them. My guess is that for the vast majority, there are strong advocates at home, and good reasons. Unless both parties and the people who elect them agree that the only money government should spend is on big-picture items -- interstate roads, bombs, social security, etc -- (and it's not as if an argument can't be made), then I vote for removing the term from the vernacular.

Everybody likes earmarks, except when they're going to someone else.

Update, 3/6:



.