I am not defending earmarks in any way. But the republican fetish over earmarks is relatively easy to understand.
How can you run as the party of "small government" when most of the population, rightly or wrongly, loves big government programs?
Now, in concept most of the population claim to like small government. But when they are actually asked about programs and spending items, most of them actually support a bigger government. The biggest item in the US budget is the military, and cutting spending on defense is incredibly unpopular. So where would a small government party cut spending? Well, they could cut it in entitlements, but the fact is that social security remains highly popular. Healthcare? Most support more govt. spending, not less.
So what does that leave a party of small government that wants to remain politically competitive?
Now, I am not making a value judgment about whether or not these programs are good or big govt is good. But the point remains that most people who say they are for small government are actually against cutting spending on the biggest items on the budget. So for a party to campaign on a small govt. they have to either expect defeat and campaign on cutting social security benefits and defense spending, or they have to try to blow small unpopular programs out of proportion.
|