Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Another Partial Finding from the Earmark Survey

As readers of the Cheese Factories blog are aware, we are running a survey on earmarks.  The survey will continue to run for a couple of more weeks: take it here and please pass it on via email, and social media sites like twitter and Facebook.

Despite the perceived opposition to earmarks 47% of our respondents feel that members of Congress have a responsibility to pursue earmarks for their constituents.  Another 33% of our sample feel that most earmarks are "probably good."  Taken together, 80% of our sample takes a position that is sympathetic to earmarks.

If our results are anywhere near representative of overall public opinion they prompts an interesting question: If 50 to 80 percent of Americans have attitudes that are favorable or somewhat favorable toward earmarks, why is media coverage of earmarks almost 100% negative?


Note: This is a non-scientific, non-random sample; any results reported should be considered as suggestive of public opinion but not representative of public opinion. Findings are based on an N=133.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Partial Finding from Earmark Survey

As readers of the Cheese Factories blog are aware, we are running a survey on earmarks.  The survey will continue to run for a couple of more weeks: take it here and please pass it on via email, and social media sites like twitter and Facebook.

One interesting finding so far (see table below) is that 30% of our respondents report being a little or much more likely to vote for a member of Congress who pursues earmarks compared to 18% who are a little or much less likely to vote for a member who pursues earmarks.  In our sample 53% of respondents report that the pursuit of earmarks would not influence their vote choice.

In August the Pew Research Center reported that 53% of Americans were more likely to vote for a member of Congress with a record of bringing government projects to the district; 12% were less likely to vote for such a member and 33% said it made no difference.

While our findings and the Pew findings are not directly comparable--e.g. different question wording and Pew's superior sample (larger and random)--both studies suggest that pursuing earmarks is, on average, a net plus for members of Congress at best, and makes no difference at worst.


Note: This is a non-scientific, non-random sample; any results reported should be considered as suggestive of public opinion but not representative of public opinion. Findings are based on an N=120.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

The Cheese Factory in Delaware

Scott talked today with Allan Loudell of WDEL 1150 AM in Delaware.  Listen to the interview.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Op-Ed on Earmarks in the National Journal Today

A little inside scoop on this one: We edited it as Scott drove me down to the CNBC interview.  So we are driving through Malibu and I am reading it out loud and shading the screen from the sun so I could see the text to make changes.  We sent it from a computer at Pacific TV where I did the interview.  Good times. Here's the link to the National Journal Op-Ed: http://tiny.cc/zv003

Friday, November 12, 2010

Earmark Challenge Quiz & Survey

We are conducting a non-scientific poll on earmarks and government expenditures.  Do you think you can tell the difference between an earmark and a bureaucratically determined expenditure?  Give the poll a whirl: http://tiny.cc/tbjuq 

You can help us spread the word about this survey by posting the link on Facebook, twitter, LinkedIn, or passing it on to your email contacts.  Once we have a large number of responses (we are shooting for a couple of hundred) we can share the results with our readers. 

Please help us spread the word!

The Cheesemasters.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Parochialism is the Point (sort of)

The election is over. Republicans won the House and increased their numbers in the Senate. Now the media are beginning to focus on how the newly-empowered Republicans will govern.  No longer are earmarks a “talking point;” now they are part of the discussion about how the Republicans will run the House, and how the Republicans might influence the generation of earmarks in the Senate.
One prominent criticism leveled at earmarks is that they are “parochial,” that is, that they are meant to benefit the narrow interests of a single congressional district or state.  The implication is that they do so at the expense of the rest of the country.
In the Senate one of the primary opponents of earmarks is Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).  In the weeks leading up to the election Coburn often sought to cast earmarks as parochial. In an interview with us a few weeks before the election Coburn stuck to this theme: “Earmarks promote parochialism…The oath of a U.S. Senator is to do what is in the best interest of the country as a whole.”[1]  The next day he repeated this same complaint to the White House fiscal commission: “Our problem is we’ve put parochial concerns ahead of the long-term interests of the country.”[2] 
The earmarks-as-parochialism meme long ago captured the media narrative surrounding earmarks.  The common use of the term “pet project” to describe earmarked expenditures communicates that point pretty well.  We expect that politicians will continue capitalizing on this narrative, which captures the attention of reporters.
What is mostly misunderstood—by many people, by many in the media, and by most politicians—is that parochialism is (partially) the point of the design of our political institutions.
In Federalist Paper #58 James Madison speaks in almost poetic terms of the wisdom of investing the “power of the purse,” the power to spend money, in Congress. He says Congress’ power of the purse is “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” The founders sought to provide a means by which “the people” could exercise a more direct influence over federal spending.
Parochialism has its benefits. Conservatives in particular--but others too--bemoan the “one size fits all” nature of federal government programs.  Using earmarks members of Congress can capture programmatic funding to adapt federal programs to local needs that might be overlooked by Washington bureaucracies. Earmarks provide an opportunity for members of Congress to offer “redress” to their constituents.
A “pet project” that results from naked self interest and that is anchored in parochialism is not less impressive because of its origins. In the absence of Senator Pete Domenici’s (R-NM) parochialism—his concern for New Mexico based Department of Energy scientists as the Cold War wound down and peace broke out— the Human Genome Project would never have taken off and produced one of the signal achievements of American science. Parochialism has its benefits.
Part of the genius of the institutional design we inherited from the founders was the conscious and creative incorporation of parochialism into our governing system. Earmarks are just one echo of the efforts of the founders to build a political system that was simultaneously responsive to the demands of the people and responsive to the national interest.



[1]  Senator Tom Coburn. Phone interview with the authors, September 28, 2010.
[2]  Walter Alarkon, “Fiscal panel poised to target earmarks” The Hill 9/29/10; Accessed November 5, 2010. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/121751-fiscal-panel-poised-to-target-earmarks