Earmarks served the United States well for over 200 years.
But they’ve been poison since.
Unfortunately, without earmarks we have the Administration doling out the money instead!
There seems no good answer.
There is, but few people ... EVEN ON THIS FORUM ... can stand to hear it:
Restrict government to the powers specifically authorized in the Constitution. Congress (and We the People) should first ask of any proposal: Does the Constitution authorize the Congress to do this? If so, where? What provision in Article I or any of the amendments authorized this?
Failing to find such authorization should result in the immediate rejection of the proposal.
It seems odd that earmarks have gotten such a bad name. I guess I don’t get it. Our form of government dictates that representatives tell their constituents what they plan to support funding-wise. Reason says that if a representative can tell his constituents he plans to support a needed road or bridge or building, that will bring a few jobs to his district and to his constituents, that’s a good thing for that district. And it forces that representative to argue and advocate for his district, to earn his keep in other words.
Like you mentioned, earmarks were just the way the American government worked for the first couple hundred years. If Congress doesn’t earmark, it gives the Executive the right to dole out projects to favored congressmen, etc. The Executive has too much power as it is. The more power that’s taken away from it, the less likely we’ll have another Obama. As things stand now, it appears that all Congress can do is appropriate a big pot of money without earmarks, and then the Executive gets to do all the earmarking. Why? Because he’s incorruptible? Puhleeze.
Why not take away representatives’ ability to make military academy appointments too? That’s essentially an earmark that’s only to be used on constituents and it’s worth tens of thousands of dollars.
In short, I’d rather have congressional earmarks than an all-powerful Executive, no matter who that Executive is. The sooner the Executive is weaned off that power, the better. And also this whole idea against earmarks is an effort to remove districts and states from the legislation equation and do everything at the national level. Also a bad idea. Our states are essentially individual nations united with other individual nations. Blurring that reality can only help reduce state sovereignty and take away an important check and balance against the behemoth federal government.