Congressional Budget Earmarks
Overview
Congressional Budget Earmarks
An earmark is a legislative procurement that advises funds to be spent on specific
projects, or that creates exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Earmarks are found both in
legislation and in the text of Congressional committee reports. Many Congress members attempt
to insert earmarks that deliver projects in their home states or districts. Controversy surrounds
earmarks as many view them as examples of “pork barrel” legislation that fosters elevated
federal spending levels and encourages politicians to “bring home the bacon” to their
constituents. The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as, “funds
provided by Congress for projects or programs where the Congressional direction (in bill or
report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes,
or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to
manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.” Moreover, the Congressional Research
Service defines earmarks as, “Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general
legislation) that specify certain Congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to
a very limited number of individuals and entities.”
The perception that earmarks may only benefit a small area or group of people adds to
their contentious nature. The Constitution does not specify a budget process for Congress to
follow, although Article I, Section 9 requires Congress to pass legislation directing all
appropriations drawn from the U.S. Treasury. Earmarking differs from the normal budget
process by which Congress allocates lump sums to federal agencies by directing specific
amounts of money to be spent on particular projects.
In the past, Congress members did not have to identify themselves or the project in their
requests for earmarks. However, due to recent backlash and reforms, earmarks are now affiliated
with the requesting members in conference reports. Also, those requesting earmarks must now
attest that their immediate families have no direct financial interest in the earmark. In the past,
the secrecy of the earmarking process enabled corrupt behavior, where lobbyists and other
special interest groups would contribute to a legislator’s campaign in exchange for earmarks.
Recently, President Obama stated in the 2011 State of the Union address that he would
not sign any more bills that contained earmarks. Although this pledge is popular with the
American public, even some members of the President’s own party, such as Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid (D-NV, 1987-present) defend earmarks citing long term precedent. Other
critics of earmarks claim that they are just another example of reckless federal spending and add
to the national debt. According to the fiscal watchdog group Citizens Against Government
Waste there were 9,129 Congressional budget earmarks in 2009 alone for a total of $16.5 billion.
Although this number appears staggering, it is a very small percentage of federal spending when
compared to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Eliminating earmarks
completely will not put much of a dent in the U.S. national debt, which now totals almost $15
trillion.
History
U.S. Representative John C. Calhoun (Democratic-Republican, SC) first introduced the
concept of administering federal funds to local projects in 1817 when he introduced the Bonus
Bill which would construct highways linking the southern and eastern United States to the newly
acquired areas to the west. Calhoun argued that the “General Welfare” and “Post Roads” clauses
of the Constitution allowed for this type of funds allocation. However, President James Madison
was unmoved. Madison vetoed the bill as unconstitutional and explained, “Such a view of the
Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead
of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms ‘common defense
and general welfare’ embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.”
Madison was not the only president who warned against the possible negative outcomes of
earmarking funds. In 1822, President James Monroe (Democratic-Republican, 1817-1825)
contended that all federal capital should be restrained “to great national works only, since if it
were unlimited it would be liable to abuse and might be productive of evil.” Moreover, in the
late 1800’s, President Grover Cleveland (D, 1885-1889 and 1893-1897) earned the nickname
“King of the Veto” due to his rejecting hundreds of Congressional spending bills. According to
Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Citizens Against Government Waste, earmarks reached a
peak in 2005-2006 with $56 billion.
Conclusion
Earmarks began as a way for legislators to obtain funds to address the needs of their
respective districts and states. Many states rely on Congressional budget earmarks to maintain
and improve infrastructure in an economy that depends heavily on large highway systems.
However, the lack of transparency in the process has led to some corruption and debate about the
actual value and importance of earmarks in the federal budget process. Critics of Congressional
budget earmarks cite that they are not included in Article I, the legislative branch. Many view
earmarks as a way for incumbents to hand out favors in exchange for key votes on legislation, or
to reward constituent contributions to their campaigns by returning such favors with federal
funds. Many who consider earmarks to be unfair and a waste of tax dollars cite the “Bridge to
Nowhere.” Senator Ted Stevens (R-AL, 1968-2009) was able to secure an earmark of $223
million to erect a bridge in Alaska from Ketchikan to the remote island of Gravina in 2005,
which would have connected 9,000 people. This example, among others, has soured the public’s
perception of earmarks and has led to recent reforms requiring Congress members to post their
earmark requests on their websites and to sign a written certification renouncing any financial
stake in the approval of the earmark. In the 112th Congress (2011-2013), the newly elected
Republican leadership vowed to ban for-profit earmarks. The future of earmarks appears
uncertain in light of Congress’ and President Obama’s stated opposition to them.