We all hate earmarks in theory, but not in practice.
As the GOP field has taken shape, contenders and non-contenders alike have rushed to sign pledges for their favorite causes and ideals. These usually have the effect of constricting the options for compromise and the ability to adapt to new circumstances in the candidates' prospective presidencies. Here are just a few of the major pledges:
- The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is championed by Americans for Tax Reform, and more specifically, Grover Norquist. It stipulates that elected officials must not raise tax rates, or even revenue. All of the 2012 candidates and most GOP congresspeople have signed the pledge. It's been cited time and again as a major stumbling block on the road to the passage of any balanced deficit reduction plan.
- The Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge (my indignation about the name could fill an article, but that's another tangent) holds candidates to a stringent slate of positions designed to roll back the number of abortions performed in the United States. Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, Jon Huntsman, and Mitt Romney have all refused to sign, as the pledge requires the President to nominate only activist pro-life judges.
- The Family Leader Marriage Vow includes a 14-point plan for rolling back existing gay rights and restricting them in the future, with a section about banning pornography tacked on for good measure. It also contained a controversial allusion to slavery that was later removed. Candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are the only signers so far.
As I've considered the potential pledges have to influence political decision making, I've also been thinking about earmarks. Earmarks have been a major bane to the American political process for years. Without further ado, here's another bullet-point rundown on why:
- Earmarks are an easy scapegoat. Despite the fact that they make up a tiny fraction of the federal budget, they are emblems of the wasteful government narrative. Earmarks make it too easy for ideologues to point out the more ridiculous functions of government and call for across-the-board cuts that damage even the most effective agencies. The best result of eliminating earmarks would be eliminating their status as a political tool.
- Earmarks pick winners. Politicians who have more insider knowledge (and fewer inhibitions) can reap the rewards of earmarks by securing unfair outlays for programs in their states, while more scrupulous politicians lose big. Whereas Delaware only receives $0.40 for every dollar of taxes paid and Minnesota only $0.54, Mississippi gets $2.83 for every dollar in taxes and West Virginia $2.82. Massachusetts gets a pretty fair deal, with $0.95 of every dollar returned to the state For a complete list, go here. One thing you may notice is that the return provided on every state's tax investment skyrocketed from 2007 to 2009. The biggest gainer was Hawaii, which saw federal funds increase 106%.
- Earmarks disenfranchise voters. The image of corruption created by the ubiquity of pet projects can send a powerful negative message. It's the message that Washington is always going to be governed by special interests, and that things are never going to change. This leads to apathy, which lowers voter turnout and involvement in the political process. So many people are disgusted, and just want to tune out. Removing all earmarks would send a powerful message that the Washington political machine is reparable.
So, I've laid out my diatribe against earmarks. What do you think? Could this be one pledge that's worth signing? It's unlikely any candidates will take me up on this, but here's the text, just in case:
The Political Musings from Monterey Fairness in Government Pledge
When in office, I pledge to
(A) Vocally oppose &
(B) Attempt to dismantle
all pieces of legislation that constitute earmarks, pet projects, or clearly wasteful spending.
Sincerely,
[Candidate's Name]
