This issue doesn’t excite me. Spending is spending whether a congressman earmarks it directly or a bureaucrat decides where it goes.
>> Spending is spending whether a congressman earmarks it directly or a bureaucrat decides where it goes. <<
Sure. But the objection to earmarks is that they increase the incentives for Congressmen, Congresswomen and Senators to vote for more and more federal spending.
Therefore, the anti-earmark theory as espoused by people like Sen. Tom Coburn is basically this:
Get rid of earmarks and then, total spending is supposed to go down.
(Maybe the theory wouldn’t work as advertised. But it’s certainly worth a try!)