Buying votes and popularity with your money

April 3, 2010 08:04

Congressional earmarks as sleazy as ‘Cornhusker Kickback’

By Thomas Stratmann at The Washington Times

With the recent passage of health care legislation and amendments to strip out the special benefits certain states got, such as the “Cornhusker Kickback,” it’s easy to forget that they make sausage in Washington just like they do at the deli: with pork. While the senator from Nebraska won’t be putting his state’s medical bill on the federal tab, several of the on-the-fence Democrats who ultimately voted for health care reform submitted requests for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of earmarks. These end runs around the formal budgeting process are no different from deals in the Senate that outraged the nation; they’re just smaller. More to the point, some of my recent research suggests that the primary reason members of Congress want earmarks is to help get themselves re-elected.

Earmarks are projects whose funding is specifically requested by a legislator (or a small group of them). According to Citizens Against Government Waste, these projects tend not to be in the president’s budget. When the projects don’t add new line items to the budget, they greatly overfund executive-agency requests. Earmarks are often not competitively bid, and they are rarely the subject to congressional hearings.

That is, in one way or another, they violate all the processes put in place by Congress to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well-spent. And while there certainly are boondoggles requested by government agencies that do go through hearings, the fact that earmarks don’t get such treatment means that many more of them – such as the famed “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska that served a mere 50-person fishing village – fail to meet even a lax cost-benefit standard.

If earmarks are so wasteful, why do we have them? Because there’s at least one constituency that always benefits from earmarks: members of Congress.

In my own research, I’ve looked at individual members’ earmarked spending. I find that for every $50 increase (per constituent) in an incumbent U.S. House member’s own earmarks, the member receives about 5 percentage points more of the vote share on Election Day. Of course, with modern congressional districts comprising 600,000 to 700,000 people, that’s a bill of approximately $30 million. That voters vote more for legislators who bring home the bacon is unsurprising, but teasing out the reason is difficult. It could be that legislators’ constituents, having identified local needs, are just rewarding Congress members for doing a good job on the district’s behalf.


Help Make A Difference By Sharing These Articles On Facebook, Twitter And Elsewhere:

Interested In Further Reading? Click Here