By Stephen Macaulay

You can find this in the White House archival material related to the George W. Bush administrations:

OMB (Office of Management and Budget) defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

And there you have the long and short of it. Elected Official A wants to fill potholes in her district and so adds some money to a bill (an “add-on”) or manages to take part of the defined spending for her purposes (a “carve-out”). And if you drive on the road that resembles the surface of the Moon, you are very happy that Elected Official A has managed to get some asphalt for your area.

However, there is that little bit of language that is concerning “circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process.” Meaning that there is the very real possibility that Elected Official B might decide that Giant Corporation Inc. headquartered in his district would be very happy were there to be a new road built that would be essentially of benefit to Giant Corporation Inc. and only Giant Corporation Inc. — oh, and GCI has donated to the Elected Official B campaign or PAC or both — so monies are earmarked for the Giant Corporation Parkway.

That is probably not a good thing for the taxpayers. But hey, money is there for the earmarking!

There is another way of looking at this, but this way works only in the event that people actually pay attention.

Say that you live in a district that is adjacent to those of Elected Officials A and B. Your representative, Elected Official C, who you are sure doesn’t do much outside of make nonsensical speeches about nonexistent things or events, but does so in a way that you can see the vein throbbing in his forehead so clearly that it results in TV coverage.

The roads in your area cause bent tire rims galore. Giant Amalgamated Widgets has closed its operations because it didn’t think that it was getting sufficient infrastructure contracts, which means that there is a reduction in the tax receipts (assuming there wasn’t some sweetheart deal to attract GAW to your town).

What is the likelihood that if you are aware of what Elected Officials A and B did in terms of getting some funds you’re going to want to reelect C, who seems to be more interested in getting spittle on the surfaces of local TV crew microphones than anything else?

Let’s not be naïve: the gears of politics need grease, and the grease is money. That can work to your favor or to their favor.

An engaged electorate deserves things like smooth roads. Earmarks could be a way to get them.

And it is up to an engaged electorate to make sure that the grease works in their favor, not that of people like Elected Official B.