Submitted by Gregory (not verified) on April 4, 2008 - 7:24pm.
Earmarks have been demonized to the point that any congressional priority is deemed a colossal waste of taxpayer funding, if not outright pay-for-play. While there a few earmarks that sound ridiculous (and probably are), the vast majority serve to advance the mission of the agency for which the earmark (or 'plus-up in the case of funds being added to the agency budget, not taken out) is inserted. It is worth noting that Congress will frequently ADD funds to an agency's budget to fund the initiative so as not to disrupt the agency's activities. It is also worth noting that, with few exceptions, the program managers at the agencies that have to administer the plus-ups (not the earmarks) are grateful for the additional funds since they compliment the work that they are funding with the limited resources that they have in the normal course of annual budgeting. Final point (and this is where I get attacked by those who are interested in preserving the status quo): The peer review system is a fantastic mechanism for allocating funds but it has one rather significant flaw). The peer review system is dominated by faculty from the leading institutions (AAU members, for example) who also happen to be the ones that are members of the Academies and are the ones who are serving as IPAs to the agencies. It is a closed cycle for the most part with little incentive to broaden participation for those institutions who aren't part of the club. This is where congressional 'intervention' is useful since it allows non-AAU institutions to participate where they otherwise would get overlooked in the peer review system. One man's opinion (and observation) of course...
Peer review isn't perfect so earmarks balance the playing field
Earmarks have been demonized to the point that any congressional priority is deemed a colossal waste of taxpayer funding, if not outright pay-for-play. While there a few earmarks that sound ridiculous (and probably are), the vast majority serve to advance the mission of the agency for which the earmark (or 'plus-up in the case of funds being added to the agency budget, not taken out) is inserted. It is worth noting that Congress will frequently ADD funds to an agency's budget to fund the initiative so as not to disrupt the agency's activities. It is also worth noting that, with few exceptions, the program managers at the agencies that have to administer the plus-ups (not the earmarks) are grateful for the additional funds since they compliment the work that they are funding with the limited resources that they have in the normal course of annual budgeting. Final point (and this is where I get attacked by those who are interested in preserving the status quo): The peer review system is a fantastic mechanism for allocating funds but it has one rather significant flaw). The peer review system is dominated by faculty from the leading institutions (AAU members, for example) who also happen to be the ones that are members of the Academies and are the ones who are serving as IPAs to the agencies. It is a closed cycle for the most part with little incentive to broaden participation for those institutions who aren't part of the club. This is where congressional 'intervention' is useful since it allows non-AAU institutions to participate where they otherwise would get overlooked in the peer review system. One man's opinion (and observation) of course...