Comment: A (muted) cheer for earmarks’ return to Congress

Congress has its problems, but removing earmarks hasn’t been the curative that many sold it as.

By Ramesh Ponnuru / Bloomberg Opinion

After a 10-year hiatus, earmarks are coming back to the U.S. Congress.

Democrats and Republicans alike repudiated the practice of letting members of Congress direct federal spending to specific projects and enterprises around the start of President Obama’s administration. Now both parties have decided to revive it, with reforms.

The decision should inspire mixed feelings. Earmarking isn’t the most noble activity a congressmember can undertake, and it can even be corrupt. But the ban hasn’t lived up to the hopes that were invested in it.

The campaign against earmarks took off during the last years of the George W. Bush administration. The number of earmarks had vastly increased starting in the mid-1990s. Earmarks played a role in congressional scandals of the time. Rep. Duke Cunningham, a California Republican, resigned and went to prison after it emerged that he had taken bribes to steer defense contracts to certain companies.

Conservatives were starting to sour on Bush, regarding him as a big spender, and earmarks became a symbol to them of the party’s wrong turn during his era. “Earmarks are the gateway drug to overspending,” said Tom Coburn in 2006, when he was a Republican senator from Oklahoma. “And if you’ll get rid of earmarks, you’re going to start seeing a fiscally more conservative Senate.” Senators would no longer be tempted to vote for bills they knew deserved their opposition but included goodies for their constituents. At least that was the theory.

In his 2011 State of the Union address, Obama presented the end of earmarks as a necessary step toward restoring confidence in government. “Because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects,” he declared, “both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it. I will veto it.”

Spending on earmarks was never a large part of the budget. A new report on earmarks by Zachary Courser and Kevin Kosar for the American Enterprise Institute points out that “even at their peak, earmarks accounted for only 3 percent of total discretionary spending; and discretionary spending is only about a third of all federal outlays.”

In the first years of the earmark moratorium, though, Coburn’s gateway-drug argument looked pretty good. Federal spending and the federal deficit shrank as a share of the economy. But the picture got worse during Donald Trump’s presidency. A bipartisan spending spree took place even with earmarks gone.

The earmark ban didn’t even get rid of earmarks so much as it drove them underground. Members of Congress turned to “lettermarks”; instead of specifying who should get federal money in bills or committee reports, they wrote letters to pressure the agencies administering the spending to direct it to favored recipients. The effect was to make such directed spending depend more on which party held the White House. Liberal Democrats in Congress got results from writing to Obama’s Labor Department to get stimulus funds, but Republicans generally didn’t.

Speaking of Obama, his hope was also dashed. “Trust and confidence” in Congress, as measured by Gallup, was not high a decade ago, but managed to sink further during the earmark-free decade. Members of Congress do not seem to have had any difficulty getting themselves into scandals without earmarks. They have made do with tax fraud, insider trading and that old standby, sexual misconduct.

It’s possible that the earmark ban even lowered the repute of Congress, in an indirect way. Supporters of earmarks often argued that they helped the legislature function by giving its leaders carrots and sticks. (This was the mirror image of Coburn’s argument: He thought too much legislation was passing that way.) The ban on earmarks may have made budget brinksmanship more common. But the effect should not be exaggerated. Rising partisanship surely played a larger role, and it was happening during the period of earmark proliferation.

Looking back over the last 20 years or so, earmarks appear to have been a symptom of larger trends rather than a cause. Congressmen rejected earmarks as they grew more concerned about federal spending, and have come back to them as they have shed those inhibitions. But earmarks don’t themselves determine spending levels, even indirectly. The ban didn’t achieve much, and lifting it will slightly strengthen an enfeebled Congress and weaken an overmighty presidency. One cheer, then, for the return.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at National Review and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Sunday, July 13

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Authorities search for victims among the rubble near Blue Oak RV park after catastrophic flooding on the Guadalupe River in Kerrville, Texas, on Sunday, July 6, 2025. The half-mile stretch occupied by two campgrounds appears to have been one of the deadliest spots along the Guadalupe River in Central Texas during last week’s flash floods. (Jordan Vonderhaar/The New York Times)
Editorial: Tragic Texas floods can prompt reforms for FEMA

The federal agency has an important support role to play, but Congress must reassess and improve it.

FILE — The sun sets over power lines in rural Ward County, Texas on Tuesday, May 20, 2025. Republicans plan to terminate billions of dollars in clean energy tax credits. Experts say that will mean more greenhouse gas emissions and more dangerous heat. (Paul Ratje/The New York Times)
Commentary: Bill will deliver dirtier energy at a higher price

Cuts to clean energy policy in the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ will stifle our energy transition and cost us more.

Tufekci: ‘Garbage in, garbage out’ behind AI’s Nazi meltdown

That Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot defaulted to internet hate speech is concerning. Our acceptance is scarier.

Everett mayoral candidate had a role in budget problems

A mayoral candidate in Everett is being dishonest, blaming his opponent for… Continue reading

Social Security email was a false and partisan use of agency

I was appalled to get a spam email from the Social Security… Continue reading

Thanks for help with driver’s license renewal

I am writing to say that I was able to obtain my… Continue reading

2024 Presidential Election Day Symbolic Elements.
Editorial: Retain Escamilla, Binda on Lynnwood City Council

Escamilla was appointed a year ago. Binda is serving his first term.

A Volunteers of America Western Washington crisis counselor talks with somebody on the phone Thursday, July 28, 2022, in at the VOA Behavioral Health Crisis Call Center in Everett, Washington. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: Dire results will follow end of LGBTQ+ crisis line

The Trump administration will end funding for a 988 line that serves youths in the LGBTQ+ community.

toon
Editorial: Using discourse to get to common ground

A Building Bridges panel discussion heard from lawmakers and students on disagreeing agreeably.

Comment: Reforms to involuntary committment law can save lives

Washington state should consider changes New York made to protect those who can’t protect themselves.

Comment: Medicaid reforms will keep it for those most in need

Beyond the ‘sky is falling’ claims, the BBB’s reforms to Medicaid are fair and necessary to save it.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.