The end result of the government spending earmark debate will likely be determined by whether or not weak kneed Republicans in the U.S. Senate can resist being told how they should think by progressive pundits. Hopefully the addition of a few stalwart conservative Senators from the November 2010 election bolstered by the already more conservative House Republicans will stiffen the spine of those Political Ruling Class wannabe ‘go along to get along’ Republicans in the Senate. To date their record of not falling for progressives sucker plays has not been good.
Earmarks equal pig ears which add up to barrels of pork spending. That these pork barrels are relatively small when compared to overall Federal government spending is beside the point. The point in eliminating earmarks is not about the total amount that the earmarks alone add up to. There are two things that result from earmarks that are reasons for eliminating them altogether, not the amount of money contained in specific earmarks.
Earmarking is a form of vote trading that must be eliminated completely. Let’s say for example that $50 million in earmarks are granted in return for yes votes on a $200 billion dollar program that several Senators may not have otherwise voted for. The earmarks themselves only amount to one quarter of one percent of the $200 billion program. It’s hard to argue the significance of that dollar amount versus the total for the program. Now let’s further assume that the $200 billion program is typical of the garbage programs that come out of Washington recently. On the conservative side expect that there is going to be at least 20% waste and unnecessary spending in the program. What you now have in return for that mere pittance of $50 million are the votes to pass $200 billion in spending that would otherwise not have been authorized with at least $40 billion of it being waste anyway. Worse yet is that if it is a new program it will soon take on a life of its own and more will be spent/wasted in following years.
A second major evil of earmark program spending is the undesirable affect the economy. The obtainers of earmarks will argue that they are good for their districts or states and the spending creates jobs and is good for the economy in general. The truth is that earmark spending on government programs results in fewer jobs being created than by private sector spending. As noted in a Heritage Foundation article [1] this past spring a Harvard Business School study recently determined that, surprise, surprise, increased government spending has a detrimental affect on local economies by decreasing private sector investment and employment.
This paper provides a new empirical approach for identifying the impact of government spending on the private sector… Specifically, we find statistically and economically significant evidence that firms respond to government spending shocks by: i.) reducing investments in new capital, ii.) reducing investments in R&D, and iii.) paying out more to shareholders in the face of this reduced investment opportunity set…. Finally, we also find some evidence that firms scale back their employment, and experience a decline in sales growth.
Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?* [2]
Perhaps Frederic Bastiat would have been comforted to know that these researchers at the Harvard Business School confirmed what he stated so clearly over 160 years ago in his essays on taxes and public works (see Everything I need to know about economics – by some French guy 160 years ago [3]).
Doing away with earmarks in Federal government legislation has absolutely nothing to do Congress abdicating any sort of responsibility as RINO Senator Lisa Murkowski would have you believe.
“The notion that Congress would abdicate its constitutional duty and turn federal spending over to government bureaucrats is wrong and goes against the Constitution’s mandate that says the power of the purse lies with the legislative branch of government,” she said.
Ms. Independence: Murkowski Steps Outside the Party Lines [4]
It’s not clear what version of the Constitution Senator Murkowski reads but this is a patently absurd argument. This is a line of nonsense that progressives try to use to belittle the Tea Party movement and generally cause weak kneed Republicans to worry about not being invited to “desirable” Washington cocktail parties if they support the elimination of earmarks. The House still originates all legislation authorizing spending as called for in the Constitution.
It’s the President’s job to see to it that legislation is implemented as intended by Congress. It’s the job of Congress to monitor the behavior of the Executive branch by way of oversight committees and program reviews to see to it that the “bureaucrats” are spending the money as authorized by Congress. Neither the Constitution nor the writings of the Founding Fathers mention Congressional responsibilities to micro manage the Executive branch or dictate that a bridge to nowhere be constructed in a particular district. Senator Murkowski is demonstrating her ignorance of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. She is also demonstrating contempt for the will of the people as communicated by the thorough butt whipping on November 2, 2010, handed to so many supporters of the far left progressive agenda of the Obama administration, soon to be former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Harry Reid. Of course progressives and the lame stream media call this sort of nonsensical defense of earmarks independence when it is uttered by a RINO.
In a recent brilliant [5] piece of analysis E.J. Dionne lectures Republicans such as Senator McConnell that by foregoing earmarks they are actually giving President Obama more authority and not really reducing spending. Mr. Dionne also concocts a theory that what the Tea Partiers really want is for Republicans to turn their back on ‘compassionate conservatism’ and something he calls George “… Bush’s peculiar but real brand of multiculturalism.” [6] Seriously now, why would anyone with half a brain take advice on how to behave as a conservative from a lifelong progressive intellectual pundit such as Mr. Dionne? Would anyone other than the weakest minded ‘go along to get along’ RINO believe that a progressive political pundit would be offering sincere advice?
In summary:
- As far as earmarks themselves go, it’s not the amount stupid, it’s the undesirable effect on the economy and wasteful spending on programs that might not even exist if not for votes purchased in return for earmarks.
- The best way for Congress to control spending by the Executive branch is to cut its allowance. Directing the expenditure of a million dollars here and there by an agency that spends billions of dollars overall is not responsible Congressional oversight of spending.
- Progressive political pundits (a) have no interest in what’s best for a Republican politician’s career, (b) are not the ‘go to’ source of information on what constitutional conservatives should do to achieve their objectives, and (c) are certainly not looking out for the folks.
- The most compassionate thing a conservative can do is cut the size and scope of the Federal government in order to preserve the blessings of liberty for our posterity.
Note: This article is also available for download as a PDF document. Click to download PDF
Print This Post
Email This Post
End Notes
[1] http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/26/harvard-reports-you-decidemore-government-spending-means-fewer-jobs/
[2] http://www.people.hbs.edu/cmalloy/pdffiles/envaloy.pdf
[3] http://www.ourfounderscompass.com/archives/433
[5] Mr. Dionne is a prototypical Political Ruling Class intellectual. By definition (Mr. Dionne’s definition that is) everything he writes must be brilliant.
[6] http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/saying_goodbye_to_compassionate_conservatism_20101117/
