Earmarks and the Pentagon Budget

The Washington Post has an article today discussing one of the major issues with earmarks -- they buy things nobody wants. An earmark is a spending line inserted by a member of Congress that directly funds or add funds to a project. The article uses the example of big tickets items, ships and aircraft, being funded after the Pentagon requested an end to the program. Part of this motivation is to keep funds flowing to their district for "jobs". Part of it is that the contractors will lobby Congress for the funds, lastly part of it is because the Congress believes they know how to manage national defense better then the Pentagon. Senator Byrd of West Virginia and Congressman Murtha of Pennsylvania have used earmarks to move money to their states. Now a company linked to Murtha, PMA Group, is under investigation for basically taking bribes to move earmarks to specific companies. Former Congressman Randy Cunningham was sent to prison for soliciting bribes to give earmarks. The article points out that the Congressmen and Senators on the military related committees have received thousands in campaign donations from defense contractors; which it somewhat implies leading to the earmarks. Part of the issue is that when equipment is added to the military's inventory it requires other costs as well. These include personnel, training and support costs thus there is a multiplier effect for the earmarks not always considered. Thus the Pentagon has to move money from things they want to pay for these. Obama ran on a campaign of reigning in earmarks but has so far failed to do so in either the "Recovery" bill or the propsoed Omnibus spending bill that is making its way through Congress now. The FY09 Defense Bill was passed before he took office so he had no chance to affect that. As there continues to be pressure on the budget over the next few years the issue of earmarks will become more important.