The incoming House and Senate members are making lots of noise about the elimination of earmarks. This is all a bunch of horseshit. The elimination of earmarks will not reduce the deficit; it just doesn’t work that way.
When the house approves a budget, there will be money allotted to certain categories. As an example, let’s say that 40 billion dollars are allocated to rural road improvement.
Senator Alpha writes an earmark to have $250,000 earmarked to improve the grading at an intersection with poor visibility. The hope is that there will be no more fatal crashes at the intersection. The local communities have been devastated by two fatalities in the past five years.
Senator Beta earmarks $14,000,000 to raise the roadway out of Dilweed by three feet. The river that flows south of Dilweed overflows the road by a foot every spring. When the road is closed, the supplies for Dilweed manufacturing cannot get through and the plant has to shut down. A majority of Dilweed residents rely upon the factory for their paychecks and the shutdown hurts the grocers, restaurants and other retailer in the area. The hope is that if the road stays open year round, the plant will not need to close and the paychecks will be written year-round.
With these two earmarks added to the rural road improvement budget, the total of the budget is still 40 billion dollars. The earmarks add no dollars to the budget total. Eliminating the earmarks will not eliminate any dollars from the rural road improvement budget.
We can eliminate all earmarks and the effect on the total budget is zero. Without earmarks, the executive branch has more control over where the dollars are allocated. Tell you elected representatives to get on with something that matters. This is a non-issue.