Cutting Earmarks Doesn’t Save Money
I think it’s reasonable well-understood at this point among non-stupid, non-dishonest people that “earmarks” are a minor aspect of the budget and the bloviating about them is just hot air not serious budget policy. Less well-understood is Stan Collender’s point that earmark reform would literally save no money whatsoever:
Lost in all of the debate (and the reporting about the debate) on the earmarks in the omnibus 2009 appropriations bill the Senate is still working to adopt is the basic fact that cutting earmarks doesn’t save any money.
This is not open for discussion. An earmark simply is a congressional decision to allocate part of appropriation for a particular purpose. Eliminating the allocation doesn’t reduce the appropriation, it simply leaves the allocation decision to a federal department or agency rather than to Congress.
A lot of people don’t understand this because the mechanics of the federal budget process are fairly obscure. But guess who really ought to understand the federal budget process? Members of congress! And especially those members of congress who portray themselves as incredibly concerned with the need for federal budget reform. I’m looking at you John McCain!
27 Responses to “Cutting Earmarks Doesn’t Save Money”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
McCain’s looking back at you and saying, “People and the honkers in the MSM listen to me, not you, regardless of what I say.”
March 9th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Why does McCain want spending decisions left to bureaucrats and not elected representatives? Bobby Jindal recently told me how horrible those darn bureaucrats were and how the valiant elected sheriff stood up to them with the boy-hero congressman.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Earmarks are harmful not because they are such a big part of the national budget (they are not, relatively speaking. Only about 1% of the total on average). But they cause so many Congressmen and Senators who stand to benefit–enhanced reelection chances by funding special projects for their district or their State–to vote for legislation which they would never consider doing without the inclusion of their earmark(s).
March 9th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I like to think that McCain trusts bureaucrats like me to allocate funds fairly and efficiently. After all, unlike Sen. McCain, we bureaucrats are bound by statute and our job contracts to serve in the public interest.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
It seems to me that there are two problems with Matt’s point. The first was pointed out by DTM, that surely rather than simply allocating a portion of the money, the bills are somewhat larger to accomodate the particular earmarks, even if they are technically just monies directed by congress. Second, even if one concedes that the billions of dollars spent on earmarks are a relatively small portion of the overall budget, if your broader point is that congress is going to spend that money anyway, then is seems to me like the fundamental failure of the earmark process its scattering of federal dollars to several diffuse projects where federal dollars may not even be appropriate instead of big public works projects (say, high speed rail) where we need big infusions of federal dollars to make those projects work. Either way, it’s an inexcusable misallocation of federal dollars.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Well, yes and no. Federal departments propose budgets and unfunded earmarks can take money away from budgeted projects the departments want or need. The departments resent earmarks anyway (someone has to administer them) but a more tolerable earmark is one that adds money to the department’s budget to support the earmark. Often the department will take an administrative fee from funded earmarks, but usually at higher levels than the operational level, often at the Secretary level. This can provide discretionary funds at the higher levels.
So, although an earmark may show up anywhere in the budget, pay attention to whether the earmark is funded in the respective Appropriations Committees. An earmark that is authorized but not funded has much more difficulty surviving if the department fights it. If not, for the beavers for example, some equally useful project may be scrapped to blow up beaver dams.
Also, keep track of how many earmarks come out of the Appropriations Committees that are not mentioned in the budget.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I think Adam put his finger on the important point here. The significance of earmarks does not derive from their size relative to the budget but from their political significance. Earmarks may fund worthy projects, but many amount to large scale bribery of the public for political support. Isn’t that a problem, Matt?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Yessir, that’s what we need, earmarks like Ted Stevens’ bridge to nowhere.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I think it’s reasonable well-understood at this point among non-stupid, non-dishonest people that “earmarks” are a minor aspect of the budget and the bloviating about them is just hot air not serious budget policy
Wow, with such impartial and well-argued analysis, no wonder everyone takes Yglesias seriously!
March 9th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Dan W:
Did you even read the rest of the post for the explanation of why that’s the case? If you did, why don’t you try to refute it?
March 9th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
You’re assuming the overall budget would be the same in the absence of earmarks. I would love to see data which could prove that budgets would always remain the same with or without earmarks.
Also – one of the major issues is lack of transparency. Having lawmakers give handouts to donors and powerful interests in their home states does not strike me as something that we liberals should favor.
Finally, a major issue is Obama’s flip-flopping on the subject. There’s no need to defend either Democrats or Republicans on this issue. Both are being hypocrites. http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/03/finally-bipartisan-issue-hypocrisy.html
March 9th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Er, pork is COMPLETELY transparent; I mean, it’s celebrated! The more we’ve focused on pork, the worse it’s gotten–I want my congresswoman to make money for my district!
Besides, it’s a kickback, not a bribe.
EARMARK reform, on the other hand, only became an issue in 2007, when Bush wanted to keep all financial power for the Iraq War in executive hands. Without earmarks, the “power of the purse” becomes much weaker.
That’s why we talk about earmarks all the time–the McCain is just too senile (seriously) to go back to beating the pork drum.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Actually, it’s another side of the “why the GOP likes earmarks” question that Matt raised earlier in the day. Another aspect is that, while under Bush they could count on the executive branch run as an adjunct of party and business interests, they can’t now.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Stan Collender is an idiot! A bribe is a bribe even if it is a dollar or 0.0001% of the budget.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:27 am
Stan Collender is an idiot! A bribe is a bribe even if it is a dollar or 0.0001% of the budget.
BTW I love your blog!
March 10th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Ugh. It is hard to take someone seriously when there argument is “if you don’t believe this you are stupid or dishonest or both”. Argue the facts, don’t try to attack people with a different view. It makes you look petty and childish.
Collender’s rant misses the point. Again, he attacks anybody that dares to disagree with him “this is not open for discussion” Puh – lease. See no evil, hear no evil.
What about the concept of opportunity cost ? Putting money into a silly,negative ROI pet project, takes away money that could have been put into a better project. Sure, the money spent is the same, but now are you getting a lower bank for your buck. That feels like a bad outcome.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
The legitimate criticism of earmarks isn’t that they spend money that wouldn’t be spent, it’s that giving C-people that kind of power to direct funds to particular groups sets up all kinds of quid pro quo possibilities.
Narrow benefits, widely spread costs, and Rep. Snopes is the sugar daddy. The actual dollar tag is a distraction.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Yessir, that’s what we need, earmarks like Ted Stevens’ bridge to nowhere.
Except that wasn’t an earmark–it was a project in a Transportation bill. This has been WIDELY misstated.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I understand that earmarks are small, but I’ve searched high and low and can’t find out how many Congresspeople added earmarks to the bill. I think is the more relevant statistic, since we’ve known earmarks are small for sometime. The news, it seems to me, is that despite the bad rep that earmarks have gotten a clear majority of Congresspeople have insisted on them.
Can someone point me to that figure somewhere?
March 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) anyway however my english not that good but i think i get the point. thanks
March 17th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Of course, what a great site and informative posts, I will add your site to mine.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Very good article, very informative. Keep up the great work.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:38 am
great stuff
March 25th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
The least-bad scenario is a hard landing, global recession worse than the 1930s. The worst-case borrows from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: war, famine, pestilence and death.\par
April 8th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
My friend on Facebook shared this link with me and I’m not dissapointed at all that I came here.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:23 am
FANTASTIC!
April 15th, 2009 at 5:44 am
Hey, cool tips. Perhaps I’ll buy a bottle of beer to the man from that chat who told me to go to your blog