No lobe lost over earmarks

In the debate over the $410 billion budget bill and its $7.7 billion worth of earmarks, it was hard to miss the references to the Buffalo Bill Historical Center. Their $190,000 grant to help digitize Buffalo Bill Cody's writings drew plenty of attention.

John McCain twittered about it. Glenn Beck ragged on it. Sean Hannity heard about it (screen capture below). Even the Associated Press highlighted it.

That was all thanks to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, who opted to highlight the BBHC project -- out of 8,570 earmarks -- as one of ten examples.

(The Taxpayers haven't replied to e-mails seeking comment on why the historical center's earmark was highlighted out of the thousands of other easy targets.)

Opinions on the worth of the BBHC's grant have ranged from "egregarious" to "important scholarly work," but here's my favorite take.

It comes from Marcy Martin of American Chronicle. She wrote,

"$190K to update a collection at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming. Are we sure this is actually a real place? Is it possible that we might be sending money to some sophisticated computer geeks from the University of Wyoming who have set up shop at an old Linens&Things and are planning one humdinger of a kegger?"

Apparently, the $210,000 I requested for "Google Search Awareness" didn't make it into the federal omnibus spending bill. Otherwise, using just a few keystrokes, Ms. Martin might well have been able to learn for herself that the historical center is indeed a real place, and a well-respected one at that.

Unfortunately, reality is often the first thing to go out the window when an over-eager writer gets their hands on a story.

In this writer's opinion, the argument over whether or not the project has merit and how many jobs it creates has missed the point. Many of the earmarks will do great things, and any project that spends money is helping somebody, and that, in all likelihood, is also boosting the economy to some extent.

The real issue and problem with earmarks, is that -- by definition --they are funds set aside through side-stepping the rules. It may be a "normal part of the process," but it isn't supposed to be.

Wyoming's Republican Senators John Barrasso and Mike Enzi, apparently realizing the problem, came out strongly against the "pork-barrel" earmarks this month. Of course, that put them in the bizarre position of speaking in harsh tones about the $23.9 million worth of pork they themselves inserted into the budget. (The Casper Star Tribune did a follow-up piece on the apparent contradiction.)

The perspective that may be lost in this is that despite all the ruckus (and the fact that $7.7 billion is a lot of money), earmarks represent a small fraction of government spending -- something Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) noted back in February.

"Let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little tiny, yes, porky, amendments," Schumer said. "The American people really don't care."