I'VE NOTICED RECENTLY that every time McCain gets a question about how he's going to reform the budget, he starts muttering about "earmarks".
Obama usually responds by saying that earmarks account for 18 billion dollars of the budget, which still sounds like a lot.
So I decided to bone up on the subject, and try to figure out just how serious the earmark abuse is, and how far fixing it will go toward solving our budget problem.
In 2008, there were about 16.5 billion dollars in earmarks in the budget—a little bit less than Obama cites, but he tends to err in the direction of his opponent's argument. (You'll notice, for example, that he has recently been claiming that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. The real figure is actually closer to 95%.)
What are these earmarks?
According to the President's Office of Management and Budget, earmarks are:
...funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to properly manage funds. Congress includes earmarks in appropriation bills - the annual spending bills that Congress enacts to allocate discretionary spending - and also in authorization bills. (Italics are mine.)
Remember to consider the source. This comes from a website under control of the Executive Branch, which would obviously like to have complete control of all the funds Congress provides. So what the words in italics actually boil down to is that the President (in this case, Bush) doesn't like the fact that Congress said where and how the money had to be spent. He would have liked to do that himself.
In fact, some earmarks are good ideas, and others aren't.
Sure, if you're trying to be funny, or make a political point, you can find all kinds of projects that seem silly on the surface, and probably quite a few that really are silly. But not every dollar allocated by Congress to a specific purpose is silly, and, in fact, most are probably not.
The entire federal budget is about 3 trillion dollars, and the deficit runs a little over 400 billion. Let's use Obama's generous 18 billion figure for earmarks.
Big numbers. So let's put it in normal life terms.
Suppose you and your spouse had a yearly budget of $30,000. If your situation was proportionate to the federal budget, that would mean you were going in debt by $4000 each year—that you were spending $30,000, but only making $26,000.
Now, suppose that you sit down together, and talk about how to solve this problem. Your spouse points out that you've been spending a lot of money in restaurants—about $180 per year, or and average of about 50 cents per day.
You admit that, yes, sometimes you stop for a doughnut, which isn't really good for you, and is a silly waste of money.
But you also point out that that $180 includes the lunch you had with that guy down the street who threw work your way, and you think that money was well spent.
Your biggest point, however, is that even the entire $180 wouldn't put a dent in the $4000 dollar deficit your household is experiencing. So, as far as the budget is concerned, there needs to be a different solution.
Your spouse, however, continues to harp on the $180 every time the budget comes up.
Wouldn't you say that your spouse can't see the forest for the trees? Doesn't it all sound a little bit petty, a little bit obsessive? A little like not getting it?
And which one of you do you think ought to be in charge of the budget?
