Lessons from the Earmark Moratorium for the DOGE Era

In January 2011, President Barack Obama promised in his State of the Union address to veto any legislation that contained earmarks: money for local pet projects that ignores the strict scrutiny most Congressional funds are subjected to.

Obama’s support helped finalize a moratorium on “pork barrel” spending championed for years by Sen. Tom Coburn and other “Tea Party” era leaders. Congress did not pass a single earmark in 2011 after ages of seemingly unlimited spending.

In the 11 years before the ban was instituted, from 2000 to 2010, Congress spent an average of $20.4 billion per year on earmarks. In the 11 years the ban was in place, from 2011 to 2021, the average dropped to $7.6 billion — a 61% decrease.

Sources: Citizens Against Government Waste and Congressional Disclosures

The graphic below shows a timeline in which earmarks continued on their previous ten-year trajectory compared to what Congress actually spent on earmarks. The earmark ban saved taxpayers an estimated $141 billion in just 11 years. To put that in context, the savings from the earmark moratorium dwarf the savings of DEI cuts ($1 billion). The savings would cover Department of Education funding ($103 billion) for a year, USAID spending ($43 billion) for more than three years, State Department funding ($57 billion) for almost three years, and Small Business Administration funding ($6.3 billion) for 22 years. (Note: even though Congress had an earmark ban in effect it still found ways to circumvent the ban according to watchdog groups, as illustrated by the blue bars between 2011-2021).

The earmark ban created savings far beyond earmarks. Coburn often argued that “earmarks are the gateway drug to Washington’s spending addiction,” and history proved him right. Getting rid of earmarks helped Congress sober up and reduce overall spending for the first time since the end of the Korean War shortly after the ban went into effect. Stephen Moore explained it well in the Wall Street Journal:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, annual outlays peaked at $3.598 trillion in fiscal 2011. After President Obama's first two years in office, many in Washington expected that number to hit $4 trillion by 2014. Instead, spending fell to $3.537 trillion in fiscal 2012, and is on pace to fall below $3.45 trillion by the end of this fiscal year (Sept. 30). The $150 billion budget decline of 4% is the first time federal expenditures have fallen for two consecutive years since the end of the Korean War ... The agreement set $2 trillion in tight caps on spending over a decade and created this year's budget sequester, which will save more than $50 billion in fiscal 2013.

Unfortunately, both parties voted to bring back earmarks beginning in fiscal year 2022, and spending multiplied almost instantly. Earmarks cost $18.9 billion in 2022, the most since 2009.

Not only are earmarks expensive, they’re often far afield from the core responsibilities of the federal government and verge on the ridiculous. In 2023, Rep. Ayanna Pressley secured $1 million to fund “a network of intergenerational, trauma-informed waterfront green spaces.” Rep. Ocasio-Cortez sent $500,000 to the Billion Oyster Project, to build a reef in Queens, NY where it’s illegal to harvest them for food. The project instead is meant to “address longstanding environmental justice inequities.” Rep. Greg Casar sent another $1 million to the San Antonio College Empowerment Center, which runs an Undocumented Student Support Program to help immigrants enroll. On the Republican side, Rep. Morgan Griffith tagged $500,000 for a new elevator at the Birthplace of Country Music Museum.

Today, reinstating a ban on earmarks would represent immediate savings to help Congress and DOGE reach their goal of a balanced federal budget. Perhaps, more importantly, an earmark ban could repeat the same effect of denying Congress its favorite gateway drug and compel them to get serious about reducing our unsustainable debt and deficits. When our interest payments on our debt exceed our national defense, Congress should not be directing scarce capital to pet projects.

To be clear, what a sober Congress really needs to do is tackle unsustainable spending for safety net programs. The play-it-safe bipartisan mantra of “not touching” entitlement spending is designed to keep politicians rather than vulnerable Americans safe. Doing nothing and “not touching” entitlements will guarantee their insolvency, hurt seniors and threaten America’s national security. In fiscal year 2024, the government spent $1.45 trillion on Social Security and $1.67 trillion on major healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Social Security and Medicare will eventually be underfunded by $175 trillion under current policy. The entire planet Earth generates only $105 trillion of wealth in a year.

Musk deserves credit for promoting a “meritocracy” and the administration and Congress should use every tool that can produce results for taxpayers. The potential savings from a renewed ban could match or exceed some of the big-ticket savings the administration has set in its sights.

In what is essentially his second first term, President Trump has shown a willingness to take risks and make course corrections. In his first term, he gave de facto permission to leaders in both parties to restart the earmark favor factory and both parties took advantage of the opportunity. If the Trump administration and members of Congress want DOGE to produce permanent long-term savings, they should study the earmark moratorium and apply its proven record of success. We’ll never reach a Golden Age over a Bridge to Nowhere.