A request to the Planet Money Team: The Economics of Earmarks

Planet Money Team:
Through the magic of public radio your team has managed to analyze complex financial instruments, economic patterns and related subjects that other reporters can’t even begin to explain.  You’ve reported on these subjects in a manner that enables a general NPR listener to understand both sides of the story. This is something that sadly other media outlets lack the ability to do.  One of your strengths is that you analyze BOTH sides of a given topic, not only that but you often have experts or data which support opposing views relating to the topic.

We all know that mortgage backed securities and the resulting demand for mortgages, good, and bad, were at least partially to blame for the “Great Recession”.  However, through your enlightenment we also understand what an important role they play in the present day economy.  Because of this, I would like to offer a challenge… a daunting challenge only worthy of the Planet Money team and the potpourri of experts you have access to.

I believe most folks are strongly against earmarks, those nasty little spending additions slipped into legislation at the last minute.  All I know about earmarks is what I hear from the mainstream media.  I’ll admit that I have done very little research into the topic on my own. Not long ago, in 2008, I believe, I remember reading that President George W Bush signed an executive order in an attempt to limit Congressional earmarks but as far as I can tell his executive order failed or was ignored.

While those on the Keynesian side of the house might argue that earmarks lead to spending and thus stimulus I would imagine that many voters, liberal and conservative are generally against sneaking in funding for pet-projects. It is possible that my own political ideology has influenced my attempt to size up this interesting phenomenon in congress. So, I defer to you, the experts.  Please educate us on: The Economics of Earmarks.

--
JL Johnson