Debate Desk
Are Earmarks and Pork-Barrel Spending Harmless to the Federal Budget?
Earmarks are a small share of spending and a large source of influence; the Bridge to Nowhere shows how they work, and conservatives differ.
The claim
Defenders say that earmarks, now called community project funding, are only a tiny fraction of the budget, that members of Congress know their districts better than agencies and that directing money to local needs is part of representation.
The answer in three points
- The money is a small share of spending, and the effect on the process is large. Earmarks are used as currency to win votes for large bills. A member who gets a project for his district is more likely to support a bill he might otherwise oppose, and the leaders who control the earmarks gain leverage.
- The history is cautionary. The Bridge to Nowhere, a proposed span in Alaska to an island with few residents, drew a federal earmark of about $223 million in 2005 and became a symbol of waste. In 2011, House Republicans banned earmarks, and they came back in 2021 under rules for community project funding.
- Conservatives disagree. Some argue that Congress has the power of the purse and should direct spending, and that a ban shifted decisions to unelected agency staff. Others argue that earmarks corrupt the process and lead to larger bills. Transparency, with every request public and the member's name attached, is a middle position.
Whatever one thinks of earmarks, citizens are entitled to see every request, who made it and what it costs. A process in the open can be judged, and one in the dark cannot.
The numbers
- The Congressional Research Service reported that the 2005 highway bill included about $223 million for a bridge to Gravina Island in Alaska, according to its summaries of the Bridge to Nowhere.
- The House Republican Conference adopted an earmark moratorium in 2010, and the ban was in place from 2011, according to congressional records.
- Congress resumed earmarks in the fiscal 2022 appropriations process under the label of community project funding, according to the House Appropriations Committee.
What they will say next
"It is a tiny share of the budget." It is, and its effect on votes is more than its size. A dollar of pork can buy a vote for a trillion dollars.
"Without earmarks, agencies decide." They do, and Congress can direct agencies by law. Earmarks are not the only way to exercise the power of the purse.
"Members know their districts." They do, and the process should be open for citizens to see and judge.
"Both parties do it." They do, and that is why citizens must ask each representative.
Spending should be public, justified and voted on in the open.
"Without earmarks, Congress cannot pass spending bills." That is the complaint, and it is also the objection. If a bill can pass only when each member is paid with a local project, then the votes reflect the payment and not the merits. Bills that must pass on their merits tend to be shorter and better.