Earmarks, they're spending your money

While it is certainly important to take careful note of candidates' the tax proposals, it would also be wise to look at the other side of the coin and examine the trends in government spending that drives the seemingly insatiable demand for tax revenues that threatens to choke off economic growth. According to an editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal, federal spending is expected to reach 21.5% of GDP next year, the highest since 1992. If this isn't a trend toward big government, I don't know what is.

One of the most flagrant contributors to this trend is the use of budget "Earmarks", to identify and provide money for pet projects located in the sponsors home state. The 2008 budget contained over 11,000 such items at a total cost of $17 billion. It's easy to understand the allure of such funding as it allows legislators to pepper their re-election speeches with a boast of all the pork they brought back home from Washington.

In this year's election, we have a clear choice. John McCain has pledged to veto earmarks whenever they cross his desk. This pledge is backed up by a long record of opposing such measures. His opponent is a consistent supporter of the legislative "old-boys" attitude of voting for each others pork. Since he became a Senator in 2005, he has asked for nearly $1 billion for special projects.

When we look at the second seat on each ticket, we find perfect symmetry. Joe Biden reliably ensures that Delaware receives a robust pork supply, while Sarah Palin has an established record of fighting wasteful spending, including the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere". According to Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina):

"Yes, she once supported the project, but after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget,......., she changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge."

Interestingly enough, when the Senate had a chance to reallocate the bridge money to Katrina relief, Senators Obama and Biden chose to stick with the original earmark.

It is not hard to understand how some might become enamored of "free" money flowing from the government's largess. We rely, however, on our elected officials to take a higher point of view and consider the fiscal implications of their actions on the whole nation, rather than grabbing what they can and then demanding higher taxes to pay for it all. Comparing the two campaigns, based on stated positions and past performance, this issue provides a clear choice for voters.