Pork Barrel Remains Hidden in U.S. Budget

The political landscape is often a tricky terrain regardless of the perspective from which one views it. Students of government studies are often subjected to simulations that expose them to the experiences of Congressional representatives and Senators. The intent of such exercises is to show them how difficult it is to make decisions while in such positions. The 2008 New York Times article by Ron Nixon under scrutiny shows the complications that underlie the budgeting process, with a specific reference to hard and soft earmarks.

The Difference between Hard and Soft Earmarks

First, it is important to understand what earmarks are before distinguishing between them. In the American political context, an earmark is a directive from Congress instructing a government agency to avail funds to a specified organization or project. Apparently, these requests come in two forms. The first type is the hard earmark, which is formal and explicit as to the amount of money it requires, as well as the organization or project that should benefit from the funds (Nixon, 2008). This makes the funds traceable and auditable. A soft earmark, on the other hand, is a similar request but assumes an informal nature and is vague and non-specific in terms of the amount required, the specific purpose for which it is requested, and the recipient (Nixon, 2008). These characteristics take soft earmarks beyond the purview of governmental agencies tasked with ensuring accountability and watchdogs that monitor government spending.

Which is more Effective

Their nature, coupled with the need for accountability and transparency in using government resources, makes hard earmarks preferable to soft ones. Therefore, they are formal and can be regulated when necessary. They allow all stakeholders to evaluate the spending of taxpayer funds, making misuse or misappropriation of foundations unlikely. Whoever ignores such safety nets is liable to a punitive action.

Do Soft Earmarks Increase Spending?

The description of soft earmarks, on the other hand, has a negative connotation. They unfairly add to overall spending by allowing agencies to give out amounts of money which none of the players involved disclose to the government or other stakeholders (Nixon, 2008). Moreover, when Congressional representatives threaten agencies with budget cuts to blackmail them into funding soft earmarks, it becomes obvious they are advancing personal interests. Eventually, the government spends more than it would have spent.

Is the Control of Earmarks Important?

Consequently, control of earmarks is a critical issue because it seeks to curb unscrupulous conduct among legislators. Through this loophole, legislators can easily furnish close associates with taxpayer money. If every legislator followed this path, huge amounts of taxpayer money would end up in individual pockets. Therefore, yes, the control of earmarks is important.

Delivery of Pork and Control

The delivery of pork is important only when it serves public interests. This can be achieved effectively through hard earmarks and other budgetary allocations. Soft earmarks are avenues that give politicians leeway to channel government funds to anonymous projects. Thus, while hard earmarks may be necessary in some cases, soft earmarks are unnecessary. This means that the best way to deal with them is to do away with them in totality. A straightforward and well-meaning legislator does not need to consult government agencies to obtain project funding. A program that fails to merit hard earmark requirements certainly does not merit government funding.

Conclusion

Earmarks have been part of the government for many years, but this does not make them legitimate. Their regulation is necessary to ensure that politicians do not use taxpayer money to advance personal interests. Soft earmarks, in particular, are open to misuse and should be abolished, while hard earmarks face stiff regulation. This way, the wastage of taxpayer funds can be reduced significantly.

Reference

Nixon, R. (2008, April 7). Pork barrel remains hidden in U.S. budget. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/washington/07earmarks.html