This morning, the Salt Lake Tribune published a letter that I wrote them. They pared it down a bit, but below is the unedited version:

To the editor:

Senators Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch aren’t telling the citizens of Utah the full story when it comes to earmarks (“Utah Senators Proud of Pork”, March 15, 2008).

First, they claim that eliminating pork projects won’t reduce federal spending. This old chestnut is horribly misleading. Earmarks are mostly carved out of the budget, so if we get rid of them, we can easily reduce the size of the budget. Pork is also infamously used to buy votes. Huge spending bills receive overwhelming support when they otherwise wouldn’t because it’s quietly understood that if a lawmaker wants his earmarks, he must vote for the overall bill. This breeds egregious spending on a very large scale.

Second, the senators failed to mention that earmarks aren’t subjected to budgetary controls that are designed specifically to curb wasteful spending. Pork projects, by their very nature, circumvent congressional hearings, competitive bidding, and perhaps worst of all, proper oversight.

Had the “Bridge to Nowhere” – an earmark supported by both Bennett and Hatch – been put through those rigorous tests, it would have never been approved. For almost 200 years, our federal government survived on budgets that contained very few, if any, earmarks. We need to return to that kind of fiscal responsibility, and I hope Utah’s two senators will help support that cause.

Andrew Roth
Club for Growth
Washington, D.C.