Pork Barrel Spending and Incumbency

This article from the Washington Times “Voters may be fed up with congressional pork: Many earmarkers now tagged for ouster.” (written before the election) argues that voters may be becoming wise to the real costs of pork barrel spending and that there may be a burgeoning public backlash against earmarking As evidence they cite several examples of long-serving incumbents in both the house and senate on the appropriations and budget committees, who have successfully funneled federal funds to their district in the past but whose reelection is still in danger, or who have failed to win their party’s primary. “Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, an appropriations committee veteran who hails from one of the most pork-barrel-friendly states - West Virginia - couldn't keep his job, losing last week in his state's Democratic primary.” They also explain the large number of retirements this year from members of the appropriations committee as a sign that they would not be able to be reelected if they ran. The article quotes Mike Connolly, a spokesman from the Club for Growth, a conservative group that argues for decreased government spending, “the American people are figuring out that, while they're getting a little bit for their state, they also know that they're paying for the stuff in the other 49 [states], too." I think the argument the article makes that backlash against earmarks can explain anti-incumbent sentiment in the upcoming election is weak. Many other factors can explain it but I don’t think there is any reason to believe that voters are becoming any more enlightened about the way in which congress operates. If representatives always vote with their districts economic interests this is because their constituent also always vote with their own economic interests, and if this means pet projects for their state or district they are unlikely to object. In the case of this election perceived potential costs of health care reform, or the stimulus, or the budget deficit may have outweighed the advantage of having an incumbent who is able to send federal dollars their way. But this does not mean there is any systematic change in the relationship between voters and their representatives, or that the incumbency advantage offered by the committee system is likely to decrease in the long-run.