The missing earmark caveat

Kudos to David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times, who included this disclaimer in his story on President Bush's quixotic effort to scale back earmarks:

As lawmakers know, earmarks, which make up less up than 1 percent of the federal budget, have incalculable political value. Congressional leaders award or withhold them to reward or punish lawmakers. Incumbents like to use federal money to curry favor with donors and constituents.

Like welfare and foreign aid, the cost of earmarks as a proportion of the federal budget are vastly exaggerated. Sadly, I'm guessing most stories today will omit this necessary context.

Comments

[David]

The cost of earmarks is a relatively small part of the budget, but I consider them extremely important, because:

1. They have been growing rapidly n the last 20 years. There's no limit to how much more they will grow if they're not stopped.

2. As the Times perhaps implies, the use of earmarks to reward donors is close to legalized corruption.