Center for Business and Economic Research - Ball State University


CBER Data Center
Projects and PublicationsEconomic IndicatorsWeekly CommentaryCommunity Asset InventoryManufacturing Scorecard

About

Commentaries are published weekly and distributed through the Indianapolis Business Journal and many other print and online publications. Disclaimer

RSS Feed

Disclaimer

The views expressed in these commentaries do not reflect those of Ball State University or the Center for Business and Economic Research.

Recent

Previewing the Long-Term Effects of TariffsThe dominant effect of the Trump tariffs will be to raise production costs on almost every American manufacturing firm.

It’s TDS to Suppose These Tariffs Are WorkingTrump has pushed the U.S. into an economic downturn that will be especially hurtful to Hoosiers.

Trump’s Tariff Recession Is HereMy new forecast, completed in late April, predicts a national recession began as early as March in reaction to Trump’s tarriffs.

Two Key Economic Lessons in One BillHoosiers face trade-offs and opportunity costs in the wake of SEA1.

View archives

Top Tags

jobs and employment 262
economics 203
state and local government 188
education 186
indiana 173
economic development 171
taxes 146
budget and spending 145
law and public policy 144
workforce and human capital 139
Browse all tags
Reporter / Admin Login

January 24, 2011

The Conundrum of Earmarks

All taxpayers should welcome the coming debate on federal earmarks.  Indiana is ground zero for the discussion because we see principled, but seemingly conflicting, stands by prominent members of our Congressional delegation. Our influential senior senator and 6th district congressman disagree on an outright ban on earmarks.   This is a rare case in which the differing concerns of both men are right and I hope will lead to remedy of federal spending procedures that we all will be happy with. 

No one who has dabbled at all in public life has escaped the stain of federal earmarks.  As an economist who worked in West Virginia for a number of years, I have substantial bona fides in the earmark process.  An egregious example is a small lunch to discuss a project that was attended by your columnist, a current congressman, two university presidents and a state senator.  One president (a Jesuit Priest) offered grace before our chicken salad, petitioning our Creator to spare the health and vitality of the senior senator from West Virginia until this particular project was funded.  His prayer was answered – and a new building now bears the senator’s name.

Earmarks suffer a well deserved reputation for waste and corruption, but that is far from the whole story.  Each year, hundreds of thousands of requests for federal funding arrive at the desks of government agencies.   Such things as bridges, community centers and research projects fit easily into the design of federal legislation and are regularly funded. Perhaps there are too many of these, but that is a different column.

All earmarks started life as one of these projects, but were rejected for one of two reasons.  Either the idea was really bad, or it did not fit the funding scheme set up by the legislation and federal bureaucracy. 

The really bad projects make the news.  New roads that are parallel to uncongested existing roads, bridges to nowhere, jet fighter engines the Air Force doesn’t want, and the list goes on.  Sadly, many good projects also end up as earmarks for the very good reason that the federal bureaucracy simply cannot be adaptive enough to write rules allowing for all innovative and broadly beneficial projects (like Ball State’s geothermal conversion, the likes of which will be routinely funded in two decades). 

The earmark process is clearly broken, but what will replace it?  One solution is better-written laws that permit more non-partisan flexibility on funding.  Something akin to the peer review of scientific research would be an improvement, but no remedy will be perfect.  There’s also a fundamental “balance of powers” issue at play.  Our Constitution gives Congress the purse strings—fully outlawing earmarks surrenders too much power to the executive branch. 

So, Rep. Pence is quite right in heralding federal earmarks as a blot on the tenets of fiscal rectitude and the integrity of Congress.  Sen. Lugar is also right in protecting the power of Congress by opposing an outright ban on earmarks.  A resolution of these concerns is good news for taxpayers. 

Link to this commentary: https://commentaries.cberdata.org/551/the-conundrum-of-earmarks

Tags: law and public policy, taxes, budget and spending


About the Author

Michael Hicks cberdirector@bsu.edu

Michael J. Hicks, PhD, is the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and the George and Frances Ball distinguished professor of economics in the Miller College of Business at Ball State University. Note: The views expressed here are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of funders, associations, any entity of Ball State University, or its governing body.

© Center for Business and Economic Research, Ball State University

About Ball State CBER Data Center

Ball State CBER Data Center is one-stop shop for economic data including demographics, education, health, and social capital. Our easy-to-use, visual web tools offer data collection and analysis for grant writers, economic developers, policy makers, and the general public.

Ball State CBER Data Center (cberdata.org) is a product of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. CBER's mission is to conduct relevant and timely public policy research on a wide range of economic issues affecting the state and nation. Learn more.

Terms of Service

Center for Business and Economic Research

Ball State University • Whitinger Business Building, room 149
2000 W. University Ave.
Muncie, IN 47306-0360
Phone:
765-285-5926
Email:
cber@bsu.edu
Website:
www.bsu.edu/cber
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/BallStateCBER
Twitter:
www.twitter.com/BallStateCBER
Close