Members of Congress Know Their Districts Better Than Washington Bureaucrats
By Fred E. Starzyk
This week, some members of Congress are again playing a familiar game: voting for earmarks that benefit their constituents while publicly denouncing the practice as wasteful spending. It’s political theater designed to resonate with voters, but it obscures a fundamental truth that taxpayers deserve to understand: earmarks don’t cost you an additional dime.
Let me be clear about how this actually works. When Congress passes an appropriations bill, it sets a total spending amount. That money is going to be spent regardless of whether Congress directs specific projects or leaves the decisions to federal bureaucrats. Earmarks simply allow elected representatives—people who actually know their states and districts—to target already-budgeted funds toward specific community needs instead of leaving those decisions to unelected officials in Washington who have never set foot in most of the places affected by their choices.
I’ve spent nearly 25 years working in the federal government or in federal government relations, with much of my career dedicated to advocating for tribal nations and underserved communities. I’ve seen firsthand what earmarks can accomplish—and what happens when communities are left to compete for bureaucratic attention.
Consider a tribal client of mine in the Midwest. For six years, this community has been unable to drink their tap water due to contamination. Six years of relying on bottled water for everything—cooking, drinking, bathing children. The federal formula-driven grant programs that are supposed to address water infrastructure needs have failed them. But through the earmark process, they will receive almost $10 million towards the total cost of an almost $50 million fix. That’s not wasteful spending—that’s the tribe’s elected representatives doing their jobs by ensuring federal resources reach people who desperately need them.
Or take the work I’ve done securing funding for youth programs on Indian reservations, where dropout rates far exceed national averages and young people face disproportionately high rates of substance abuse and mental health challenges. A youth center might seem like a small thing to someone in Washington reviewing grant applications, but for a reservation community where young people have few positive outlets, it can be transformative. Earmarks allow members of Congress who understand these specific challenges to direct resources accordingly.
I’ve also helped secure funding for programs serving people with disabilities in the Midwest, creating opportunities for employment and independence that might otherwise not exist. And I’ve worked with fruit growers in New England and the Midwest to secure resources for clean water infrastructure and crop disease prevention—investments that protect both agricultural livelihoods and food security.
None of these projects would automatically rise to the top of a federal agency’s priority list. They don’t fit neatly into bureaucratic categories. They require someone who knows the community to say: this matters, and here’s why.
The critics will point to individual earmarks they find objectionable—that’s the nature of the game politicians play. One member’s essential community investment is another member’s outrage of the week. But let’s be honest about what the alternative looks like. When Congress eliminated earmarks for a period, federal spending didn’t decrease. It just shifted entirely to executive branch agencies that allocated funds through their own opaque processes, often favoring communities with sophisticated grant-writing operations and established relationships with federal officials. Rural communities, tribal nations, and smaller municipalities without armies of consultants found themselves at an even greater disadvantage.
The Senate’s current Interior-Environment bill contains over $700 million in earmarks, with substantial portions dedicated to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. These are investments in fundamental public health—the kind of thing government is supposed to do. The fact that elected representatives rather than faceless bureaucrats are directing these funds to specific communities is a feature, not a bug. It’s democratic accountability in action.
Today’s earmark process includes transparency requirements that address legitimate concerns about abuse. Every request is publicly disclosed, including the requesting member, the recipient, and the project purpose. Members must certify they have no financial interest in the projects they request. This is a far cry from the earmark practices of decades past, and it ensures voters can hold their representatives accountable for the spending decisions they make.
So when you see a member of Congress theatrically denouncing earmarks while quietly benefiting from the same process for their own district, recognize it for what it is: political performance. The real question isn’t whether Congress should direct spending—it’s whether you trust your elected representative to understand your community’s needs better than a bureaucrat who has never heard of your town.