Federal Transportation Pork

John Fund wrote an insightful Wall Street Journal editorial on Congressional earmarking. (hat tip: Scott at Reach Upward). Fund writes:

Earmarks have become the corrupt currency by which bills like the ruinously expensive prescription drug entitlement are bought vote by vote. They inevitably result in some lower-priority projects being funded first, with potentially disastrous results.

and

Earmarks have created their own parasitic specialized lobbying industry. "They go client hunting, telling cities or counties they can virtually guarantee an earmark," says Ron Utt, a former federal budget official now at the Heritage Foundation.

Last month, the Spectrum ran an editorial opposing Rep. John Dougall's suggestion that cities be prohibited from hiring federal lobbyists to undercut the State's transportation priorities.

The issue is how we should best prioritize construction projects for the State's highway system -- either (1) through the State's prioritization process or (2) through Congressional line-item-veto authority over that prioritization process. At the end of the day, that's all earmarking is -- a way to avoid the State's priorities. It is important to remember that project-specific earmarking doesn't mean more money for a state -- just that the federal money the state receives must be spent on specified projects in specified ways or be forfeited.

Being removed from the workings of the states, earmarking decisions are based on very raw (and, often, scuzzy) politics. Of course, as federal officials brag "Lookie what I brought home," there is never a mention of the other State projects that are bumped back by the earmarking: "I got you road X! Sorry about delaying road Y."

The editorial states, "[Rep. Dougall] said he wants projects that receive federal funding to be better coordinated with the Utah Department of Transportation. That's a good goal, and it is one that our federal lawmakers have attempted to adhere to in the past." Well, no. If our federal officials want to coordinate with the State's plan, all they have to do is avoid earmarks. Though such discipline would not reduce the amount of transportation money flowing from D.C. to Utah, an added benefit is that it would reduce the amount of pork-for-all press releases coming from the Nation's Capitol.

If our Congressional delegation is unable to resist the siren song of earmarking, it might make sense to control the issue from the other end of the spigot. Rather than directing who and how our local government leaders can lobby, it might be worth exploring state legislation that would prohibit the State and its subdivisions from spending federal transportation money that has been earmarked on a project-specific basis. That would put an end to federal earmarking of Utah's cut of the transportation money -- and leave just fourty-nine states more to go.