In her column on Saturday, Gail Collins of the New York Times makes the important point that earmarks aren't a pressing national priority:
McCain hates, hates, hates earmarking — the Congressional habit of sticking appropriations for special back-home projects in the budget without going through the normal priority-setting process. He talks about it with an enthusiasm that he never manages to summon for the economy, health care or education.
Earmarks are indeed a bad thing. If you ever become a U.S. senator, please dedicate yourself to getting rid of them. But for the chief executive of the country, they’re about as critical a problem as the overlong Christmas shopping season.
The problem is that Collins never actually proves her point. Without the relevant data, the statement above is just an assertion. Here's what's missing: the reason earmarks aren't a critical problem is that they are a tiny percentage of total federal spending.
For instance, estimates from watchdog groups of total earmark spending in fiscal 2008 range from $16-18 billion. Current estimated outlays for the federal government in fiscal 2008 are $2.9 trillion (PDF). That's less than one percent.
To put it another way, the current projected deficit is roughly $400 billion. Even if John McCain got rid of every earmark (an impossible task), it would only make a small contribution to deficit reduction. (See Factcheck.org's takedown of McCain's exaggerated claims of how much it can save by reducing earmarks.)
If only Gail Collins could tell her readers these things...
There's also not a critical problem because earmarks don't actually increase the budget, they just carve off chunks for pet projects.
Posted by: Mike | September 08, 2008 at 10:26 PM
I think the main issue with earmarks is the corruption angle. When lawmakers "secure" votes on certain legislation because they promise to vote for someone's earmark, then legislation is voted less based on its impact (and relative merits) and more based on who's congressional district is benefited.
I don't have any evidence to back my assertion, but it makes sense to me (until someone shoots it down with a good response).
Posted by: Nuclear | September 09, 2008 at 12:15 AM
I'd be more impressed with McCain's fiscal sensibilities if he'd ever supported a means to pay for his trillion dollar war instead of obsessing about the penny side of the ledger. Instead he's helped rubber stamp every Iraq spending bill put forth by the president, suggested that opposition to doing so was anti-American, and never made the argument that we can't keep charging this war indefinitely on the nation's credit card.
Posted by: Jinchi | September 09, 2008 at 02:30 AM
Brendan's analysis wrongly assumes that because current earmarks are $16 -18B, future earmarks will be the same amount. In fact, there's no reason why a Dem President might not allow a Dem Congress to dramatically increase them.
Posted by: David | September 09, 2008 at 08:29 PM