Bribing people with their own money (Pt. 2)
Posted by Marc Hodak on March 14, 2008 under Invisible trade-offs | 
4 Comments to Read
Most people are against earmarks, it seems, except those who dish them out.
The political logic of earmarks is impeccable. If you’re a Congressman or Senator, there’s this big pot of money on the table. If you don’t reach into it, others will, and will leave you with nothing. Do you want to be Congressman Can’t Bring Home the Bacon? Individually, congressmen may largely agree on the idea of getting rid of pork barrel spending. It would actually make their jobs easier, more ennobling even, to focus on the bigger issues of state than who should get what from the public trough. But the people with the power to change the system are the ones who benefit the most from it. They have the most control over the pork. They are the most adept at using that pork to maintain their power. They indeed grew up in this system of power for money, and frankly wouldn’t know what to do if it were drastically changed. So, earmarks are ingrained in our politics.
The economic logic against earmarks is just as impeccable. When a congress-critter proclaims that they secured $500,000 for a new Teapot Museum, their constituents may be thinking, “Do we really need this?” But what many of them are also asking is, “How much money did I send to Washington? If I’m getting this little part of it back, why didn’t they just let me keep it and spend it?” In other words, there is probably little to be gained from my congressman spending my tax dollars on some private benefit for me. I’m perfectly capable of paying museum admission, if I’m interested in patronizing. If I’m not, then why I am I being made to pay for it?
Let’s not even get into how constitutionally or morally suspect the earmarks process is.
Some people are fooled into thinking that someone else is paying for the goodies that our congressmen “bring home.” But any reasonably educated person (as opposed to overeducated, perhaps) knows that it’s a little like the person who stole your silverware coming back for a visit bearing a nice gift of a serving fork. Gee, thanks.
sam said,
Pork-barrel spending and earmarks aren’t about buying the votes of the general electorate, they are about buying the campaign contributions of those in a position to supply them.
jd said,
Actually, in the article it says they got $500K from congress.
M. Hodak said,
So jd, you’re saying I actually understated Congressional largess in this case? (Thanks. I made the correction.)
Sam, you’re right. It’s sometimes hard to trace the cause and effect of contributions earmarks, though, for my money, the presumption ought to be on the former prompting the latter. Still, if you look at the body of the linked “Teapot” article, you’ll see the congressperson from the district saying, in effect, “hey, the money was there. I didn’t put it there, the leadership did. My only choice was to spend it or let it get spent elsewhere.”
Shakespeare's Fool said,
As if he couldn’t have gotten it spent on a hospital or school or . . .