Heritage Foundation Leadership for America

?Put simply, the framers of the Constitution clearly states that Congress, not the President or federal bureaucrats, should allocate funding for the various functions of the federal government,? wrote Sen. Larry Craig and Rep. Mike Simpson in a recent open letter to constituents defending earmarking, which has been under assault by conservatives. ?Ending the practice of earmarking would transfer massive funding authority to the President and the federal agencies in defiance of the Constitution.? Earmarking, they conclude, is not just convenient but a constitutional obligation.

Craig and Simpson get at least one smaller point right: some earmarked programs are indeed beneficial. That said, many, many more are wasteful, unnecessary, and constitutionally questionable. As Reason?s Jacob Sullum asks, where in the Constitution ?is Congress empowered to spend taxpayers? money on local wastewater treatment, college courses, or nuclear energy research?? (Remember, the Preamble doesn?t count!)

Far worse, Craig and Simpson ignore the bigger picture. As Sullum explains¸ earmarks, even when justified, drive a ?pork for power? dynamic that warps principles and leaves national interests in the dust. ?It?s doubtful that legislators who reflexively demand more money for their own states and districts will do a better job of allocating funds for military housing than? some bureaucrat, writes Sullum. Indeed, there?s strong evidence to the contrary: ?As Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl notes, legislators have been known to support big-ticket items such as the Medicare drug benefit in exchange for the promise of pork.?

The solutions to eroding the culture of earmarking are simple, which perhaps explains why they?ve drawn so much opposition. Greater disclosure of lobbying relationships would help, and bans on earmarks designated to specific organizations or people would be a major step forward. As well, the President could also make a big difference: imagine the chaos in Congress if he instructed all executive agencies to ignore all non-binding funding requests, such as earmarks that wind up in conference reports but not the actual legislative text. Or imagine a veto of a pork-laden appropriations bill. (This does require some imagination.) Both Congress and the President have the tools to rein in pork-barrel spending or at least increase transparency in the earmarking process. They should use these tools.