Analysis: Does Canceling an Earmark Cut Spending?

This ABC news story illustrates a common argument against earmarks:

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill look to cut spending amid thousands of omnibus earmark projects

https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/lawmakers-on-capitol-hill-look-to-cut-spending-amid-thousands-of-omnibus-earmark-projects-earmark-projects-directed-by-members-of-congress-federal-tax-dollars

What it gets right:

  • Many earmark projects are for local improvements that have been funded by local tax dollars in the past and probably should be going forward.
  • Earmarks feed the perception that Congress is using your tax dollars to fund their pet projects.
  • Note: the earmark cited in this story is very common, even when it a grant from a federal agency instead of a Congressional earmark (see: What’s the Difference Between a Grant and an Earmark). Federal grant officers are looking for low risk opportunities and often prefer to incrementally supplement established, limited-scope projects with a lot of local support rather than start a new project with future funding needs.

What it gets wrong:

  • Cancelling this particular earmark would not reduce spending unless Congress also passed a “recision” to remove the ability for the federal agency to spend the money.
  • Earmarked line-items in Congressional spending bills almost always connect to an existing federal grant program. The head of that agency (a political appointee) would most likely receive a phone call from a member of Congress in support of a cancelled project.
  • If the earmarked project matched the grant eligibility criteria for the grant program, the agency could still choose to fund it under “merit” consideration (weighing its value according to the program criteria against other applicants).