Earmarks vs. Infrastructure

by Laura Knudsen, Independence Party State Secretary

The infrastructure that allows for the flow of energy, the shipping of products, and the movement of people is in critical need of repair. Recent news reports convey that 80,000 of the bridges currently in use in the United States are categorized as structurally deficient. The 35W bridge in Minneapolis shared this classification before its collapse on Thursday, August 1, 2007.

This tragedy is too fresh to fully understand what led to the bridge collapse or to comprehend the impact it will have on the Twin Cities. We do know the impact other infrastructure failures have had. The July steam-pipe explosion beneath the streets of New York killed one person unnecessarily. In New Orleans, lives and homes could have been saved if government officials had heeded the warnings of engineers who said the levies there could not withstand a mid-level hurricane. These infrastructure failures reflect the failings of our elected officials to place the safety of our citizens ahead of the priorities of special interest groups.

Increasingly, political power brokers in Washington, D.C., have chosen to spend our tax dollars on pet projects, called earmarks, rather than invest in the future of our country. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, earmarks added $29.3 billion to federal spending in 2006. In 1991, earmarks totaled $3.1 billion dollars - an increase of 945% in fifteen years.

The increase in earmark spending is a direct result of rising pressure to “out fundraise” the political opposition. Lobbyists attract new clients with their track record of delivering earmarks. Campaign contributions are directed to the elected officials who deliver on their promises of funding the special interest projects that lobbyists are lobbying for. The more money a candidate raises, the more “viable” their campaign becomes, which then attracts more money. This circulation of money for paybacks corrupts the decision-making process, resulting in money being siphoned away from projects of merit, such as infrastructure repairs.

The final cost of not addressing our country’s infrastructure will be much greater than making the investment in that infrastructure. Jonathan Miller of the Urban Land Initiative estimates that fixing our country’s aging infrastructure will cost $1.6 trillion. A price tag that is certain to increase, if we continue to allow the infrastructure to deteriorate. The impact on the economy and potential loss of life should be great enough motivation for our representatives to spend our tax dollars appropriately. The impact on our nation, should our citizens lose confidence in the government’s ability to provide the basic needs of a developed country - a safe and reliable transportation infrastructure - is immeasurable.