FYI: Earmarks Are A Red Herring
September 9, 2008 | Permalink
The McCain Campaign has consistently discussed the issue of earmarks throughout this entire campaign. Lately, the Obama campaign has been engaging them in this arena with respect to Sarah Palin and the “Bridge To Nowhere.” Substantively, the McCain Campaign is overstating the case on earmarks; strategically, it is very foolish for the Obama Campaign to engage them on this issue specifically….
Lately the McCain Campaign has been ramping up the rhetoric against earmarks. Foolishly (although unsurprisingly) the press is covering McCain’s statements on the subject without educating listeners/readers. Earmarks comprised approximately 0.63% of the entire Federal Budget in 2008 ($2.9 trillion budget, 18.3 billion in earmarks). Indeed, wasteful spending is certainly a problem. And, I am not suggesting that all earmarks are worth defending. Rather, I am pointing out that McCain’s talk on earmarks sounds great and is effective from a political perspective, but in terms of governance it will have little real impact on the federal deficit. Certainly, it’s worth discussing in a campaign, but the amount of attention the McCain campaign is giving such a minor issue in the grand scheme of things belies their intention - to talk about something that sounds good for them. If the McCain Campaign were discussing some of his other economic proposals to the same degree, the political benefits would be greatly reduced.
Is it possible for someone in the mainstream media to call out McCain on this subject? Or, are they just going to keep rambling about the closeness of the polls?
Sphere: Related Content
Thank you for this illuminating post. Spot on. Your work matters. Keep up the great reporting!
The fallacy in your post is taking a very narrow view that earmarks are opposed only because of the effect on the deficit. This is a red herring. You further alude that McCain is attacking earmarks solely because of the effect on spending and the budget. That is a misrepresentation of McCain’s position.
McCain has clearly stated the real problem with earmarks is corruption.Earmarks are in fact legalized bribery. Look at Hastert, Stevens or Murtha’s record to see how bad it can get. Legislators can and do direct taxpayer funds to benefit contributors, family members, and line their own pockets by improving the value of property they own. There is nothing more corrosive than earmarks undermining the foundation of our government. They are a cancer in the body politic and must be cut out.
MW,
I completely agree that earmarks are a negative and the practice should be stopped or significantly reduced. However, my post was more about the political calculation associated with emphasis the McCain Campaign is placing on earmarks. They are strongly overstating their significance and are doing so largely because it is a positive political issue for McCain.
If the campaign spent as much time talking about foreign policy or health care as they do talking about earmarks, they would not be helping themselves politically all that much. Thus, by focusing on earmarks the way they have, the campaign is working on shifting the grounds of discussion to something that is favorable to them. Understandable. And, I am not criticizing them for doing this. I am just calling it like I see it and cautioning listeners to put things into perspective.