There is unease brewing across the nation at the earmark ban adopted by Republicans in Congress. Apart from the Democrats who have yet to embrace it, many local governments and private groups are uneasy. They have come to rely upon earmarks to get things done. So have people. Projects across the nation are in jeopardy. Ship channels need to be dredged, commuter lines need to be expanded, libraries need to be built. Because state and local governments have been eviscerated by Washington, those governments have become dependent on federal funds. Suddenly, those funds have been identified as "pork" spending. In Dallas, for example, the Trinity River Project to expand light rail in the city is in trouble. It should be. It would take casuistry of the highest order to make the case that improved public transportation in Dallas in any way benefits taxpayers of the nation. Nevertheless, Dallas wants the Trinity River Project and they need the federal government to help pay for it.
One would be hard pressed to find people concerned about light rail in Dallas outside the city. (Texas being Texas, it would not be much easier to find people in Dallas concerned about light rail.) But that really doesn't matter. Virtually every district has a project in jeopardy. Because of that, every district has something in common. They all want federal funds. That is the appeal of earmarks. The costs are borne by the nation but the benefits are reaped by individual politicians. The costs are abstract. The benefits are concrete. The debate over earmarks may be one of principal but the community center built by earmarks can be pointed to and touched.
Most Americans have come to the conclusion that there is a spending problem in Washington. Earmarks have become a symbol of that problem, nothing more. Earmarks are not bankrupting the country. Entitlements, bail outs, and the ambitions of Washington are. If every earmark was scrubbed from the federal budget, the deficit would be only scratched, no more.
Even if a a district was able to muster the integrity to elect a congressman who not only would promise to oppose earmarks, but refuse them, the primary result of that action would be to put that district at a disadvantage. The taxpayers of that district would still be paying for earmarks, they just wouldn't be getting any return on their money.
The problem with earmarks, and government spending in general, is not one of laws or institutions. It is one of politics. And political problems can be laid on the lap of voters. Voters expect their representatives to deliver, not just votes on issues important to them, but money as well. If their representative cannot deliver the goods, they will find one who can. I cannot think of a single instance where a politician was chastised by his constituents for bringing too much money home to his district.
The public is the one with the spending problem, not the government. Congressmen wouldn't scramble to bring home money if they didn't benefit from it at the polls. The public has become like the overweight husband who asks his wife not to buy donuts because if she buys them he will eat them. But, if she doesn't buy donuts, her husband is miserable and takes it out on her. What is a poor woman to do? If she has to choose between a fat but happy husband and an angry, thin one, more often than not she will choose a fat and happy one, even if she has to borrow money to keep him fat and happy.
The public wants to blame politicians for the massive spending taking place in Washington. They need to blame Washington because they refuse to accept that they are the ones responsible. No one in Washington is forcing money on the public. Quite the opposite. The public clamors for it. At the bottom, if the public wants a smaller, cheaper government they will have to reduce their demands upon it and learn to do some things without it.
So long as the public loves donuts, it will elect people who will get them donuts. Free donuts are the best donuts of all. And if it means a politician must provide the public with donuts to keep his job, he can be counted on to do so.
There are 435 congressional districts in the U.S. that need to be kept happy. Each representative is only concerned with one. The other 434 are not his responsibility. Until a politician actually loses an election for bringing money home to his district, ending earmarks will remain a dream.
It will be interesting to see how many of those in Washington who favor ending earmarks will run for reelection on what they did not bring home.
