The Earmarking Game

I find the debate around the practice of ear-marking to be a fascinating one, because of all the contradictions that it throws up and shamelessly ignores. It is perhaps one of the most fascinating parts of Congressional reform efforts because of the competing narratives about earmarks that represents a key contradiction of the American political system.

Much like Congress's approval rating, there's an incredible duality about the American people's opinions towards earmarks. In one sense, earmarks, provisions added to Appropriations legislation that specifically appropriates an amount of money to be spent on a specific project in a specific district, are widely disapproved of by the American public. Congressmen are perceived as scraping pork from the barrel and cutting up the taxpayer's pie in a selfish way that focuses only on their own re-election.

On the other hand, the beneficiaries of earmarks within the states are perfectly happy about the fact that they've received a government contract! The people disapprove of other people's earmarks, but still respond incredibly well to their Congressmen bringing money (and therefore jobs) to their state in the form of government contracts. It seems like noone can win - if earmarks are eliminated then the people will widely approve of it but will severely disapprove of the fact that their district isn't receiving prized government contracts anymore.

Anti-pork crusaders like Jeff Flake play a noble game, because after all he is not dipping into the conventional methods of securing re-election and buttering up his district with all the pork he can possible accumulate. On the other hand there must be businesses in his district which would like to receive government contracts which don't. As I say, there's a real duality about the approach to earmarking. It's so attractive for representatives because the general disapproval of the people doesn't affect them except in a wider 'control of Congress' kind of way.

For the member of Congress set upon their own re-election in their own districts who care what the 'people' think if they aren't registered voters in that member's district? The truth is they don't, except when earmarking is an important issue in the control of Congress. Let's face it - that's never happened, and it seems unlikely that it will (pork isn't sexy enough to provoke a wave unless it's part of a wider theme of government waste, but as the crown jewel of that perceived waste unless it's specifically named and mercilessly attacked it gets away without reform.)

Pork-barrel politics isn't something that the members of Congress should be responsible for legislating. If only there was someone else who could do it and stop them from their own excesses. Members of Congress are election-orientated machines - there are very few saints left. Efforts are needed to ensure that they don't use this machine-like drive for re-election to abuse what should be in the best interests of the American people, which one wonders if they do.