Earmark Reform
Update - The Portland Press Herald of Maine has an excellent article describing many of the issues revolving around earmarks. They lay out how some of the defense earmarks gained by the local Congressman and Senators have greatly benefited the local economy and companies. The issues though are that they are not necessarily requested by the Department or Services and they may not be the best use of those taxpayer dollars. The earmark process as is pointed out often goes around the whole competitive contracting process. One of the foundations of proper defense contracting is the use of competition and while advocates say the items funded are desired by the Government without a proper competition it is not known if the best value is gained.
Earmarks are specific funding added to the Federal budget by Congress. They are usually directed in such a way that the funding goes to a specific company or locale. While they are found througout the appropriations bills for all parts of the Executive Branch the ones that get the most popularity are those in the defense budget.
This is probably as it is the largest single discretionary appropriation that the U.S. government makes and it involves a lot of different companies across the U.S. This allows the Congressman or Senator to easily find a recipient or have a recipient find them. Recently Congressman Randy Cunningham (R-CA), Medal of Honor winner and former Navy fighter pilot, was sent to jail for basically taking bribes from a defense contractor to direct earmarks their way. Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) has received a lot of attention and criticism recently for directing earmarks to his district and the city of Johnstown, PA.
The problem is unless you can tie a direct bribe to the actual earmarks it is not illegal. The House is responsible for all bills related to funding the Government, the Constitution says so. As long as a majority of the House and Senate approve the bill the earmark will stand. Some politicians, like John McCain, refuse to earmark as they say it is a sign of corruption. It is easy for a company to steer campaign contributions to a specific politician or PAC while lobbying their local Congressman for work.
In some cases the earmarks go for things that are desirable but not able to be fitted into the regular budget, or are not a high priority. An example would be the C-17 transport aircraft which Congress has funded several a year of beyond what the Air Force has requested. That does not mean the Air Force could not use the C-17 aircraft but that their were more important things that the Service wanted to buy. In some cases the Services rely on Congress to earmark funding for the programs rather then competing within the budget build up proper.
The main issue is that adding earmarks beyond what is requested by the Executive Branch adds to the total spent by the Government. In times of deficit, which has been the norm for most of the last forty years, this funding only increases the debt and expands the problem. Earmarks allow budget hawks and reformers a hook to hang criticism of all spending on -- whether it is wasteful or not.
How is this process fixed? The only way would be to have a Congress of 535 representatives who don't do it. Their have been attempts over the last several years to add at least transparency to the process identifying who is adding earmarks and for what. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer did an excellent study of how earmarks work. Another solution would be to just limit how much money Congress gets to spend. Unfortunately when you have no limit -- adding to the defecit every year -- there is no real way to end it that way. So it will take control and discipline by Congress to reign in this problem.