Swearing off earmarks

earmarks. you might as well insert a profanity into the federal budget with all the disdain that has been dumped on the term.

For decades, incumbent congressmen touted their ability to bring home the bacon in the form of federal dollars for home state projects such as infrastructure, medical and technical research, and the occasional study to determine why pigs smell.

But with the influx of Tea Party devotees pushing conservatives even harder on reducing spending, nearly all Republicans have taken a vow of earmark abstinence in the new Congress.

The problem is, the nonbinding vow, even if it is followed, won’t have much of an impact because the $4 trillion federal budget is so huge. According to the Con­gres­sional Budget Office, the government spent $10.1 trillion from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal 2010. Of that total, just $41.4 billion—or about 4/10ths of 1 percent—was spent on congressional earmarks, with the United States Marine Corps the biggest recipient.

California, with nearly $2.9 billion in earmarks over that time, was the top recipient. Massachusetts came in 23rd with 766 earmarks for $730 million.

The top 10 earmarkers are split evenly between Repub­licans and Democrats. While Massachusetts once had legendary earmarkers like the late US Reps. Thomas P. O’Neill and J. Joseph Moakley and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, no Bay State congressman currently ranks in the top 25. Sen. John Kerry ranks 28th, sponsoring or cosponsoring 424 earmarks valued at $557 million.

Most of Kerry’s earmarks, though, were for national projects, such as the military, national parks, and medical research. Kerry was the sole sponsor of just one earmark for Massachusetts—$8 million to help build an institute at the JFK Library dedicated to the study of the Senate, in memory of Ted Kennedy.

Source: Congressional Budget Office and Taxpayers for Common Sense