Your Pork, My Earmarks

There was a lot of discussion over earmarks in the presidential campaign, with McCain singling out an Obama earmark for $3 million for Illinois’ Adler Planetarium, ostensibly to buy some new equipment. McCain, who has not requested any earmarks since he was involved in the Keating Five Scandal, cited this earmark as an example of government waste and frivolous spending. Why, he asked, should the U.S. government pay for a new planetarium projector system in Illinois?

Fair enough. And you’d also be correct in citing most earmarks as non-essential projects that are uninvolved with running the country. No earmark illustrates that better than the legendary Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere – which Sarah Palin was for before she was against – and was seen as a classic example of pork spending purely for now former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens.

But the Bridge to Nowhere is unusual for a few reasons. The only reason it got noticed was because of its price tag – $398 million, which caused the Congressional Committee to actually take a look at it and see what a travesty it was. Most earmarks are overlooked because they cost far, far less than that. Despite McCain’s opposition, earmarks only count for 0.5% of the FY 2008 budget. Granted, that was $16.5 billion but it consisted of 11,524 earmarks – an average of $1.4 million each if my math is correct. Hiding $1.4 million in the mountain of appropriation bills that comprise almost a $3 trillion budget is nothing.

I can understand the frustration if someone doesn’t want the U.S. giving $3 million for projector equipment in Illinois. But what if you live in Illinois and your kids are taking a field trip to the Adler Planetarium? What if your kid sees the cool pictures of the universe the projector provides and becomes interested in science? What if the projector makes Adler one of the leading planetariums in the Midwest and the planetarium and local businesses reap in new money? Then you’d consider that money well-spent and you’d like to thank the government for the money, and Senator Obama for sneaking it into an anonymous bill that wasn’t vetted too carefully.

The truth about earmarks is that while they may be wasteful to most, it is one of the best ways for Congressmen and Senators to prove their worth to their constituents. Bringing home the bacon isn’t just the goal of family breadwinners; it’s also the goal of elected officials at the local and national level. Barney Frank is my Congressman, and he publishes a list of earmark requests on his Web site, although the cost is not included. Scanning them you see everything from Fall River sewer improvements to Taunton nursing home renovations. And yes, those two towns are part of his district. Part of his job is to get businesses, colleges and citizens the money they need to complete projects. To them, this is not pork – they are vital improvements that will benefit Massachusetts residents. Of course, if you’re not in Frank’s district you probably think they’re wasteful spending. Some will pass and some will not.

Are some earmarks unnecessary pork? Yes. Do they benefit friends and financial supporters of elected officials? Sometimes. Should there be better transparencies in the earmark process, including their full cost and what bills they are slapped onto? Absolutely. Should they be banned outright? No. While earmarks can be infuriating, they remain one of the best ways for members of Congress to send benefits and money directly to their districts. It helps them tout their accomplishments in re-election campaigns. And ironically if a Congressman isn’t bringing home enough earmarks, even their fiscally hawkish constituents may vote them out of office for not helping their towns enough and forgetting about the citizens they represent.