As you know, earmarking is a regular practice among Congressmembers and Senators, except for a very few. On the Republican side, we have Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, and John McCain who don't request earmarks. On the Democratic side, we have Russ Feingold and Claire McCaskill.
We have heard the conservative arguments against earmarks, such as "limited government," but we haven't really heard liberal arguments against earmarks. Follow me over the flip for more.
What I often times hear from fellow liberals is that these people are sent to REPRESENT us, and therefore their duty is to bring back as much money as possible. Such a thing is a side effect of the lost conception of our rights.
If I may briefly lay the background, we all have the right to life. Life is a process of action to sustain oneself. This right is present in everyone, all the time. So then some may say that enslaving others is arguably an action to sustain oneself, which is in principle the same argument as saying the right of representation includes the right to earmarks.
My right to life does not include a right to enslave you. Simply, we have a fine line that keeps both of our rights intact. The very right which one acts upon defines the same right in someone else. If I have a right to the fruits of my labor, and you have a right to the fruits of my labor, then neither of us really has a right to the fruits of my labor. Put another way, if I have a right to the fruits of your labor, then you have a right to the fruits of my labor, and then we have no right to the fruits of our own labor. For that matter, I don’t even have a right to the fruits of your labor because someone else also has that right. That right would be self-defeating.
So then comes the legal right of representation. This right is present in all Americans always. Therefore, just as my right to life does not take away from your right to life, my right to representation does not take away from your representation. Again, this is simply a line of division keeping all of our rights intact. Earmarks are an example of crossing that line. My right to representation is taking away from your representation.
A good way to test what a right entails is to ask, "If you are the only one in existence, would it be possible for you to do this in the name of your right to life?" Don’t think for a second that this means you therefore do not have the right to trade with others. After all, isn’t it impossible to trade if you are the only one in existence? Yes, but that misses the point. You would be able to simply obtain what you are trading for if you were the only person in existence. You have the right to sustain your life through your own efforts, and trading with each other is a means of sustaining your life through your own efforts, and does not take away from another person’s right to life. Such is not the case with stealing, etc...
The same goes for representation. If we only had one representative in the U.S., could that person collect earmarks on behalf of the constituents? No, as this depends on taking money from other districts.
This part shoots down the principle argument of pork. Now for the practical part.
I have heard quite often that earmarks only make up about $18 billion of the federal budget, and cutting them won't make much of a dent in the debt. This claim is true, however this does not justify earmarks. How is it right to be spending money here when we are claiming we do not have enough money for our most important priorities? It’s like someone claiming "I can’t afford dinner" but continuing to buy dessert.
Conservatives often support getting rid of earmarks in favor of debt reduction. Liberals often respond with the fact that the money is going to be spent regardless. Such a claim assumes that only what’s authorized can be appropriated, which is not the case. But that response misses the bigger picture. I will demonstrate by using many rhetorical questions:
Why are we earmarking Transportation dollars when we still have structurally deficient bridges to repair?
Why are we earmarking Homeland Security dollars when some of our most vulnerable sites remain unprotected?
Why are we earmarking Defense dollars when we aren’t even able to guarantee sufficient body armor for all our troops?
Why are we earmarking Interior dollars when we remain unprepared to deal with forest fires?
Why are we earmarking Health and Human Services dollars when we still have uninsured children?
Why are we earmarking Education dollars when we still have underperforming schools?
The list goes on. This is ultimately why liberals should oppose earmarks: they take away funding of dinner in favor of dessert. Let’s have Homeland Security grants, let’s have the COPS program, and so on, but let’s base funding on merit, not on how long a certain person has been in office. Funding for levees in Louisiana is a worthwhile expenditure, and if such thing can only be funded if the Congressperson of that area has been there long enough, something is seriously wrong.