I used to handle earmarks for a Member of Congress. They get a bad rap, but I think they're good if done right. Members of Congress get to direct some (less than 1%) of the federal budget to priority projects in their district.
https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1361311221245476865
Local reps have legitimacy here. They know their districts, represent constituents, and so *should* get to direct some fed funds.
The alternative isn't less spending - it's local reps relinquishing this power to the executive branch, or writing one-size-fits-all legislation.
The alternative isn't less spending - it's local reps relinquishing this power to the executive branch, or writing one-size-fits-all legislation.
Sure, this produces some funny outcomes like the "bridge to nowhere." But in general, reps want earmarks that are locally popular - they want the positive press. They want to brag about bringing home the bacon. That's a good thing - that's representative democracy in action!
A real side benefit @JakeSherman focuses on here is that earmarks can grease the wheels for bigger legislation. Want universal healthcare for all Americans? Well throw in a "cornhusker kickback" for that conservative Nebraska senator. politico.com/story/2009/12/…
We shouldn't kid ourselves that we can take politics out of budgets - spending is highly political. Earmarks simply give local reps - and by connection their constituents - a bit more say. And they might help us get some good big legislation too. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
