In 2021, Democrats ended the 10-year earmark moratorium ,have made a notable comeback in US Congress, revealing a deep divide in approaches between Democrats and Republicans. With their reinstatement, the Congressional parties have showcased starkly different strategies and goals through their allocation of earmarks, or as they are now known, Congressionally Directed Spending and Community Project Funding.
A new analysis of the earmark justifications from the 117th Congress has laid bare the philosophical and tactical differences between the two parties. Democrats tend to use earmarks for a wide range of social welfare, education, and community development projects. In contrast, Republicans, emphasizing American values, have a preference for large-scale local infrastructure projects, such as road and bridge construction, which are not only need-based but also come with a higher price tag.
This partisan asymmetry extends to the average amount requested per earmark: Democrats typically sought $1.7 million per earmark while Republicans requested a substantially higher average of $4.7 million. At the individual member level, this contrast becomes even more pronounced, with Republicans asking for over $20 million more than Democrats, a surprising fact considering the Republican advocacy for budget cuts and the elimination of wasteful spending.
The latest figures for fiscal year 2023 also reflect this trend. Congress has designated $15.3 billion for about 7,200 local or community projects. These projects span various sectors such as community and regional development, natural resources and environment, transportation, national defense, and health, showcasing the diverse applications of earmarked funds.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines earmarks as funds where Congress’s direction circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient. The redefinition and new requirements aim to bring transparency and accountability to the process. It is now incumbent upon federal agencies to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest in the allocation of these funds and to properly track their usage.
As Republicans take control of the House Appropriations Committee, it is projected that their earmarking behavior may shift. Historically, Democrats have been found to target their earmarks more towards their core voting blocs – a strategy that Republicans may now adopt, given their new position of power. In the 117th Congress, Democrats referenced a core target group, such as class, race, women, ethnic groups, LGBTQ individuals, or youth, in 22% of their earmarks, whereas Republicans did so in only 4% of their requests.
From a longer-term perspective, research on federal earmarks affecting health care and public health has indicated that having representatives on key Appropriations committees increases the likelihood of a county being a top recipient of earmarks. Moreover, counties with greater poverty have historically been more likely to receive earmarks, suggesting a need-based component to these allocations, despite the common perception of earmarks serving political interests.
Relevant articles:
– Earmarks are back: How Democrats and Republicans differ, Brookings, Jan 12, 2023
– Tracking the Funds—Community Project Funding and Congressionally Directed Spending, Government Accountability Office (GAO) (.gov)
– Definitions, archives.gov
– Health Spending and Political Influence: The Case of Earmarks and Health Care Facilities, National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov), by JP Leider · 2015 · Cited by 5