Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group

With the increase in the number of earmarks from Congress, maybe someone should evaluate why there has been an increase instead of just labeling them as bad.First, a little perspective: The total amount of money earmarked for particular uses is a very small percentage of the overall federal spending each year one percent or less. To equate earmarking of federal dollars to out-of-control spending is not factually supported, and even if you wiped out every single earmark (begging the question of what an earmark really is) the financial impact upon the country would likely be unfelt. If you doubt this, take a look at the FY2007 continuing resolution, which knocked out most earmarks. Did anyone really notice?The earmarks scrutinized by Taxpayers For Common Sense, the Sunshine Foundation, and others are all contained in appropriation spending bills. They do not impact the total amount of funds spent, just where and how they are spent. Think of it this way during the budgeting process, Congress decides how big a pie to make. They decide how much of an ingredient to put in the pie (tax revenue) and when they finally pass a budget, its like putting it in the oven to bake. But once the pie is removed from the oven, they have to decide how to cut the pie and to whom it should be served. Thats the appropriation process. Earmarking a piece of the pie in no way impacts the size of a pie already baked. Earmarking is part of a constitutionally directed responsibility of the Congress; it decides where money should be spent. Isnt it ironic that no one complains about the President, Vice President, or executive agencies earmarking federal dollars? Do we really feel so much more comfortable with bureaucrats who do not stand for election, or in the case of the president and vice-president, do so a maximum of two elections in eight years, having the sole ability to decide where money should be spent? Or would we rather have 435 elected congressmen having to answer for their decisions every two years, and another 100 senators every six years?So why do earmarks appear more popular? The bureaucratic process of utilizing federal resources is daunting. The cost of applying for funding and the costs that are required to be incurred without any indication of the likelihood of success requires communities and other potentially worthy applicants to undertake significant financial risk. Those persons, organizations, and communities most in need and often the most worthy, are also often the least able to afford the costs and risks the system has come to mean. When that happens, who could blame a potential applicant from turning to the person or persons elected to helping them in our government?Recipients of earmarked appropriations do not get a free pass. The applicant is still required to meet program requirements and fit the legally mandated criteria. The difference however, is that with an earmark designation in an appropriation bill, the applicant knows that its up front costs planning, engineering, consulting, etc. will be utilized and that the cost will not be wasted. In short, the earmark lowers the risk of wasting time and resources to obtain the requested funding. Lowering that risk gives smaller and less affluent communities and non-profit organizations the ability to invest their limited resources more intelligently.Congressional representatives can serve as a single point of contact for a constituents needs. The federal government rightly or wrongly is huge, complex, and complicated. There are many agencies and programs, often with overlapping jurisdictions and authority. Unless one is knowledgeable about a particular program or resource, it is often difficult to know where to start. Congressional staffs help serve as a clearing house of resources for communities seeking help. For example, the community seeking help to revitalize its town, develop small business, and create new jobs, might find it interesting that the Department of Transportation, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Department of Commerce all may have programs to help -- but where to start? Congressional offices can serve as that starting place.More, not less, congressional involvement is needed to address the countrys overall spending habits. Removing congress from the spending process also removes them further from accountability to each of us, the voters. Alternatively, expecting members of congress to be more involved with the real consequences of their spending decisions puts some context on the votes for large number spending bills that may or may not mean anything to their own districts. A word about transparency. Taxpayers For Common Sense, the Sunlight Foundation, and other media sources focused upon congressional spending should be applauded for helping to shine light on how our tax dollars are spent. Indeed, one day perhaps Congress itself will make review of their spending decisions more easily done. Until that day, however, the media continues to play an important, and at time singular, role as congressional watchdog. Faith in the publics ability to form its own conclusions about each transaction, assuming it has adequate information about the transaction, is made easier with greater transparency with the earmark process. To pass judgment on the process itself, because of its misuse by some, however, is to declare the media efforts to improve that transparency a failure.

I really don't have too many arguments with this (although I think the folks at the Heritage Foundation found a real correlation between the increase in the number of earmarks and increases in federal spending generally -- I'll see if I can't get them to point me to the chart they did tomorrow).I think there is a real procedural problem in how earmarks are handled--look no further than this story by my colleague Anupama to see what I mean--and people as far apart on the ideological spectrum as Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., have said so, quite publicly.I'm not anti-earmark at all. What I don't like is the process by which earmarks are handed out. I think we need a lot more transparency, obviously, and a lot ore scrutiny of how Congress spends our money.