The problem with earmarks is that they expand the centralization of federal power and further the contraction of federalism, all while providing the means for legislators to reward special interests, cronies, and the like.  Earmarks are the oil in the engine of political corruption.  Earmarks represent the means to expand federal control over powers constitutionally delegated to states and individuals.  Earmarks are a danger to our Republic. 

            What is the purpose of Local and State government?  Is it not to allow the people to have direct and intimate control over the way their life is governed?  Is it not to allow citizens of this great nation to have access to the elected officials who make decisions on their behalf?  Is it not to retain those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government as our Constitution prescribes?  I ask you to compare the number of times you have met United States congressmen versus the number of times you have met members of your police jury.   

                What is an Earmark?  Simply put, it is the delegation of funds by United States Legislators for specific projects to be implemented, often at a local level.  If Rodney Alexander gives $175,000 from the national treasury to the City of Delhi for the purpose of building sidewalks, he has exercised the power of earmarks, and consequently has expanded the authority of the Federal Government. 

                This system sounds good at its surface.  Who wouldn’t want “free” money.  I will be the first to agree that the funding of sidewalks is a good thing for the City of Delhi, but the question is, who should be responsible for bankrolling this project?  Is it a responsibility of the federal government to assure that every single city in America receive top quality sidewalks?  If sidewalks are a necessity, why are the denizens and elected officials of  Delhi unwilling or unable to provide this “necessity”?  What, if any, new federal regulations will the people of Delhi be obligated to now that the federal government is providing sidewalks? 

                The question becomes one of freedom, choice, and the distance from which government controls our lives.  Do we want an all powerful federal government to collect the nation’s wealth and redistribute it in their own manner from the central hub of Washington, or would we prefer our taxes to be collected and spent locally by individuals with direct vested interest in these projects as our Founding Fathers prescribed?  I personally hold that earmarks are an affront to our Constitution and should be fought tooth and nail. 

                The argument for earmarks is the same as the argument for Socialism over Capitalism.  The benefits of earmarks and socialism are easy to demonstrate, while the ramifications are not readily evident.  It is easy to measure the benefits provided by the passage of laws and the redistribution of wealth, but it is far more difficult to understand that greater benefits would be provided indirectly through the actions of a free market.  One needs to look no further than to the trillions of dollars spent fighting the “War on Poverty” and notice that where poverty has not remained static, it has expanded.

                If the federal government were to reduce the tax burden on citizens, perhaps the city could afford new sidewalks.  Perhaps the residents of Delhi would prefer to spend their money on some other project that would encourage businesses to enter their city?  What more good could those residents have done to expand and strengthen the city if they still had their tax dollars to spend on themselves?  I adamantly hold that if the citizens of any town desire a project, and assuming that they are allowed to exist in a free market with a severely reduced federal tax burden, they will provide the funding necessary for the project to exist.

                If the citizens of Delhi want sidewalks, they should be allowed to build them, but with their money – not ours.

Andrew Clack