Ground Game

The invaluable Brendan Nyhan links to today's New York Times story which puts the actual monetary effect of congressional earmarks into proper context. The Times' David Kirkpatrick reports they make up less than 1 percent of the federal budget. As Nyhan explains:

Like welfare and foreign aid, the cost of earmarks as a proportion of the federal budget are vastly exaggerated. Sadly, I'm guessing most stories today will omit this necessary context. 

Several congressional reporters and bloggers, myself included on both fronts, have placed perhaps too great an emphasis on the prevalence of earmarks. However, I do believe there is justification for this bit of fiscal obsession. Excessive spending is often difficult to communicate as an issue, whether you are a reporter or an activist. Earmarks are symbolic of that issue and translate into a rare economic narrative that resonates with voters. They also are a perfect example of lawmakers from both parties circumventing the electorate to pursue projects that otherwise would likely not gain popular support. So, while their literal burden on the taxpayer may be dwarfed by other budgetary matters, they are still very important symbolically. Unfortunately, this administration has finally caught on to that, and now seeks to use them as a tool of political convenience, rather than to seriously address the philosophy of fiscal restraint. But that should not diminish their importance to individuals who believe that the government does too much, or should be more transparent and effective about what it chooses to do.