An article in USA Today asserts that states have lost billions as a consequence of earmarks they’ve been unable to spend:
The federal government treats an unspent earmark like an undated check that could be cashed at any time. It affects the federal budget only if it’s cashed. Nevertheless, because lawmakers inserted some of the earmarks into particular sections of transportation bills, many of the orphan earmarks also count against a state’s share of federal highway funds and have taken billions of dollars away from state transportation departments across the nation.
During the past 20 years, orphan earmarks reduced the amount of money that states would have received in federal highway funding by about $7.5 billion, USA TODAY found. That’s $7.5 billion that states could have used to replace obsolete bridges, repair aging roads and bring jobs to rural areas.
Illinois’s “lost” money: $350.4 million.
Does this mean that because of earmarks, there has been $7.5 billion that would otherwise would have been spent?
If yes, wouldn’t this invert the objections by many regarding earmarks as “wasteful spending” when they arguably limit spending through “orphaning”?
Jack’s got it. More earmarks!
Especially for unicorn round-ups and post-purchase interviews of Chevy Volt buyers.