Earmarks have long been used to secretly allocate money for specific projects, often in a congressman’s home state or district. The public typically has no knowledge of the contents in these earmarks because they are embedded within large, unrelated bills.

By electing so many Republicans and Tea Party candidates in the midterm elections, the American public sent the government a clear signal: reduce spending in Washington, D.C. The movement to eliminate the use of earmarks in Congress is a manifestation of this very belief. Eliminating this practice will increase transparency within our government and ensure that such a practice is no longer abused.

The most notorious use of an earmark was the attempt by an Alaskan congressman to grant Alaska nearly $400 million for the ‘bridge to nowhere.’ The bridge would have connected Alaska’s mainland to Gravina Island, population … 50.

This huge allocation of money was not approved and has become the poster child for the elimination of earmarks in congressional bills. As with any government measure in this political atmosphere, there is fierce debate about whether or not to ban this practice.

On Tuesday, Senate Republicans joined House of Representative Republicans in voting to eliminate the use of earmarks in Congress. Republicans have backed such a ban because they want to reduce spending in Washington. ‘This is a huge start, but it is the first step, I think, of moving toward things like a balanced budget and recognizing we’re not here to bring home the bacon,’ said Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, one of the leading proponents for eliminating earmarks, in a Nov. 16 article on POLITICO.

In reality, earmarks make up less than 1 percent of the budget. A ban on earmarks may not decrease spending, but it will increase transparency and therefore trust between the public and our politicians. If a politician wants to allocate money for a specific purpose, such as improving infrastructure, it should be public knowledge rather than an earmark embedded within a bill.

Democrats have not been as quick to approve a ban on earmarks. Congressmen rely on earmarks to get funding for specific projects. What people need to realize is that such improvements can occur using transparent, reputable methods.

The stimulus bill created jobs and improved infrastructure across America without the use of earmarks. A ban on earmarks would give the executive branch increased power to determine where and how money is spent. Instead of individual congressmen dedicating large sums of money to pet projects, the government could prioritize the most pressing issues and allocate money accordingly.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a New York Times article, ‘I believe personally we have a constitutional obligation, responsibility to do congressionally directed spending.’ The issue with earmarks is that those congressmen who have more power have a greater ability to get earmarks into bills. If earmarks are eliminated, there will be a much more efficient and just method of funding distribution.

Now more than ever, the government has a responsibility to increase transparency in its practices and reveal to the American public how tax dollars are being spent. Earmarks are counterproductive to this goal and only decrease accountability within the government. Eliminating earmarks ensures that money is spent in a responsible and transparent manner. 

Benjamin Klein is a junior political science and magazine journalism major. His column appears every Wednesday, and he can be reached at bklein@syr.edu.

Published on November 17, 2010 at 12:00 pm