Republicans in Congress are at odds over ear marks. Established Republicans, other than for an occasional gesture or grumble, are comfortable with earmarks. It is how Congress gets things done. Legislators energized and indebted to Tea Party supporters however are causing friction with their vow to curtail the long tradition of earmarking. Curbing or halting earmarks was a central position among many of those who ran for Congress by running against Congress. Republican South Carolina Senator Jim Demint asserted that "Americans want Congress to shut down the earmark favor factory." When asked their opinion on earmarks in principal, voters have repeatedly expressed their disapproval. So have their representatives. Therein lies the problem. Pork spending is not a principal. It is a political way of life.
There is indeed something unsavory about representatives pilfering the treasury in order to purchase the support of their constituents. But when it is their representative or senator bringing money back home, many people take a very different view. $50 million for a new highway or bridge may be a source of irritation when read about in the newspaper. People may mutter or complain about government pork if that money is being spent elsewhere. However, if that money is to be spent in their district, principal often yields to opportunity. They will be the ones that benefit from the new highway or bridge, not others. Not only will they get a new highway or bridge, they will get the economic benefit of that $50 million being spent in their communities. Government pork is usually a matter of perspective. One man's pork is another man's bacon. While pork has long been a source of disgruntlement among the electorate, bacon is always welcome.
Members of Congress are each beholden to their districts, not the nation. If they want to get reelected, they have to satisfy the voters of that district. Esteem in the eyes of the nation is of little benefit if the voters in your district are unhappy with you. A favorable editorial in the Washington Post or the respect of the Cato Institute is of little use to a congressman in Wyoming at election time if her constituents are restless.
The quickest and easiest way to satisfy voters is to bring home the bacon. Because every member of Congress wants to be reelected, they all have something in common. Staying in office is one, if not the only, true bipartisan goal in Washington. Because it is bipartisan, most in Congress are willing to work together and seek compromise. They may squabble over details and take umbrage over a scandalous or especially extravagant project. But to the extent they all benefit, more often than not they are willing to accommodate each other.
DeMint is seeking to take aim at "pet projects." The difficulty with Demint's objective is there is no standard by which projects can be judged. A bridge to nowhere or a study of the sexuality of chickens may jump out, but such examples are not common. The vast majority of projects funded are deemed useful, at times even necessary, by those who request the funding. A museum in Missouri or a new highway in Arkansas may be of no value to voters in New York, but they are of value to Missouri and Arkansas. A congressman from New York may gain some advantage from criticising "pork" spending on such projects because he can afford to. He does not rely on voters in Arkansas or Missouri to get reelected. He might be willing to make a trade though.
Very few can, or would argue against a cancer research center or a military base. While there might be dispute over particulars, cancer research centers and military bases are necessary. They have to be somewhere. And, if they have to be somewhere, best it is in your district. The same with other spending. If Washington is going to spend a hundred million dollars to improve the nation's infrastructure, why not start in your district? Every member of Congress has something in his district that needs to be built, repaired, or stimulated. As for the cost, job security in Congress is priceless.
There are ways to curb pork spending. One way would be giving the president a line item veto. That will not happen in our lifetime, or the next. Another way would be to establish and independent panel to review earmarks and assess their merit, assuming agreement could be found on who would sit on that panel, how they would be selected, and what the criteria were as to what precisely constitutes pork spending. The time that would take would all but ensure nothing was passed by Congress, another good reason for an independent panel. Getting a grip on earmarks is on the list of things to do. It might be accomplished right after we succeed in sending a manned mission to Mars.
In any event, earmarks constituted only a minuscule portion of federal spending in the 2010 budget. They should be nowhere near the top of the list.
