The term “earmark”  has become a political buzzword and hot potato this election season.   Indeed people are always walking up to me on the street here in Baltimore and asking, “Jon, what on earth is an ‘earmark’ and why do these Presidential candidates keep talking about them?”  After I get done convincing the curious passerby that this political term has nothing to do with the indentations left in hometown Olympian Michael Phelps’ pillow each morning, I tell them this:

“An earmark is a term used somewhat loosely regarding Federal budget appropriations.   Basically, it refers to when a member of Congress allocates money within a bill for a very specific purpose.   For example if the normal practice were to allocate money to, say, the State of Alaska for a broad concept like transportation infrastructure, but some shrewd politician instead found a way to specify the funds be used for a single project like, say, a $398 Million dollar bridge to Gravina Island (population: 50) with the full support of the Governor of Alaska, that would be considered an earmark.   However, the term doesn’t apply in all circumstances.   In defense bills, for example, it is standard practice to specify what the funds are being used for, so in that case an earmark would apply to any expenditure allocated to something more specific than the normal practice.”

By this time, the formerly curious passerby is looking for ways to excuse themself from the longwinded explanation I’m offering or trying to change the subject to one of Sarah Palin’s children or Michelle Obama’s sense of style.   But I persist, offering a little insight on top of fact, saying:

“Now how earmarks have been abused is when a politician uses them as “pork”, or in other words an unnecessary project in their home state or Congressional district which probably benefits a company, interest group or individual close to the politician’s heart - who in many cases will have made a campaign contribution to the politician or bestowed them with favors.   So the potential for a quid pro quo with legislators using earmarks is an obvious problem.   However the simple act of specifying what federal money should is not in and of itself necessarily a problem.   Also, to put the earmark issue in perspective, the total value of earmarks placed in the Federal budget was $18 Billion while the budget itself was $3 Trillion and the total size of our National Debt is $9.67 Trillion.   So essentially earmarks account for 0.6% of the Federal budget and less than 0.2% of the National Debt.   Add onto that the fact that we’re on some of shakiest economic ground of the past 80 years and it becomes clear that earmarks are not exactly the biggest of our worries.

However the McCain-Palin Campaign like bringing up the issue - despite Governor Palin’s past associations with the practice - because it:

1. Allows them to appear to be talking about economic problems while not actually having to commit to anything that will actually change economic policy.
2. Furthers the image of them being ‘Mavericks’ taking on Washington that they’ve carefully tried to cultivate in order to escape from the Albatross hanging around their party’s neck.
3. Provides yet another distraction to keep the campaign from discussing substantive issues like energy policy that would offend some of their supporters.”

By this time the once curious passerby is regretting ever having asked the question in the first place and usually excuses themself with a quick “Well thanks, I really gotta run!   Uhhhhh…Anderson Cooper 360’s on!”  But that doesn’t mean you have to resort to CNN to get the dip on earmarks.   You can takepart by keeping an eye on wasteful earmarks at Citizens Against Government Waste, a top watchdog group over pork spending in Congress.

LINKS:

ABC News: Biden: McCain’s economic answers are a Bridge to Nowhere

LA Times: Sarah Palin said yes, thanks, to a road to nowhere in Alaska

The Coloradoan: Palin endorsed Bridge to Nowhere at first