The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting article on earmarks on Dec. 26. It's interesting partially for what it says about earmarks and partially for what it says about the WSJ.

More...

As for earmarks themselves, restricting their use might eliminate some Congressional ethics problems, but it won't help much with budgets because most earmarks don't add spending, they merely dedicate existing federal funds to specific projects. Whatever impact they have on the amount of spending comes indirectly through their effect on projects that get pushed aside to make room for earmarked projects.

Republicans once hated earmarks. Reagan once vetoed a transportation bill because it contained a few hundred earmarks, but the transportation bill for FY2005 contained 2,094 earmarks. In 1996, when Republicans took over Congress, there were 3,034 earmarks in all spending bills. There were 15,818 in FY2005, and Republicans were offering lessons for new Congressman in how to use earmarks. Of the roughly $1 trillion in spending that year, $40.8 billion was earmarked.

WSJ chose to use a wildlife bridge over I-70 in Vail Pass as the hook for their article. They included a bunch of quotes from Colorado officials about how much they hate earmarks because they interfere with the priorities they establish within the state and how ridiculous the wildlife overpass is. Two percent of Colorado's federal transportation dollars were earmarked in 2000. In the most recent year, it's up to 13 percent, totaling $63 million. Colorado total transportation budget is about $1 billion, with 40 percent coming from the federal government. The wildlife bridge design will cost $500,000, and the money comes from a special federal fund rather than from Colorado's allotment. Not only is the dollar amount modest, most of the criticisms don't even apply because the project uses a special funding source. By comparison, Ted Stevens' bridge on the Alaskan coast will cost $223 million, and a bridge over a South Carolina lake $150 million.

Why would they choose a tiny project with a unique funding source to illustrate their article? Do they think their readers are not clever enough to notice how inappropriate the choice is or are just too biased against anything environmental to care? Do they think hitting an elk at 55mph is funny? Do they think it's a great project and want to draw attention to it however they can?

In any case, if someone talks about limiting earmarks as a way to control spending, they are trying to pull one over on you (or perhaps they are just stupid). Earmarks are a way to steer money toward a specific recipient, something at least four Congressmen are under investigation for. They are also a way to evade public hearings and permitting and approval procedures. They are not a significant cause for the out-of-control spending in the Bush era.