Comment & Debate
“A few kind words for earmarks”. Cross Cut. February 9, 2009 – Earmarks were in fact less than 1 percent of the federal budget in 2008. Congress could use a germaneness rule, so that amendments to bills, including earmarks, have to relate to the original bill. That would prevent some shenanigans. But even though a lot of earmarks get through Congress, it’s difficult to argue that earmarks are what has driven up the federal deficit.
Steny H. Hoyer. “‘Pork’ doesn’t fatten budget”. USA Today. March 11, 2009 – Earmarks […] make up a tiny portion of the budget but have received a disproportionate share of attention.
[…] Some politicians try to cultivate an image of fiscal discipline by railing against earmarks — and “pork” also makes a great story for the news media. But as congressional scholar Thomas Mann recently noted, earmarks do not generally increase spending but simply allow members of Congress to direct a small part of a program’s funding. “Abolishing all earmarks would therefore have a trivial effect on the level of spending,” Mann explained, adding that “hyperbolic attacks on earmarks are a disservice to the public, encouraging people to concentrate way too much attention and energy on a largely symbolic issue and ignore the critical decisions that we face.’
Getting our fiscal house in order is much more difficult and more essential than arguing over earmarks. We must take a tough look at the future of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and reform our defense budget to protect our security and tax dollars. Only by making tough choices on big issues will we return our nation to fiscal responsibility.