Resolution Condemns Earmarks: Calls for Permanent Ban to Combat $38 Trillion National Debt

This resolution is a strong statement against congressionally directed spending—the practice better known as "earmarks." Essentially, the body adopting this resolution is saying that earmarks, which returned to Congress in 2022 after a 12-year break, are wasteful, corrupt, and need to be permanently banned immediately.

The document doesn't mince words, painting earmarks as a primary driver of federal debt, which currently exceeds an eye-watering $38 trillion. The resolution notes that Congress has overseen over $12.5 trillion in deficit spending since 2020, and the annual interest payments on that debt have now crossed the $1 trillion mark. For context, the Congressional Budget Office projects publicly held debt will increase by $108.1 trillion between 2025 and 2055—a number that makes your mortgage look like pocket change.

The Gateway Drug to Debt

This resolution leans heavily on the argument that earmarks are a fiscal and ethical hazard. It cites former senators who called earmarks the "gateway drug to overspending" and even mentions that several former members of Congress and lobbyists have been convicted of crimes related to the practice. The core message is that using taxpayer dollars to fund specific, often localized projects that bypass the standard competitive appropriations process is inherently reckless.

For the average person, this is about more than just numbers on a spreadsheet. The resolution connects this overspending directly to the “inflation crisis” currently hitting families across the United States. The theory here is straightforward: less government spending equals less money chasing the same goods, which should, in turn, help cool down inflation and stabilize costs for everything from gas to groceries.

Who Wins and Who Loses?

If this resolution were to translate into a permanent ban on earmarks, who would feel the impact? The immediate winners would be fiscal conservatives and anyone deeply concerned about the national debt, as it removes one mechanism for discretionary spending. The resolution calls for Congress to "spend taxpayer dollars wisely for the best return on investment," suggesting that standard, competitive funding streams are the better way to go.

However, the groups that lose out are local entities—think municipal governments, universities, and non-profits—that rely on these targeted funds for specific, often critical, projects. Earmarks are frequently used to fund infrastructure improvements, research grants, or community centers that might struggle to compete for massive, nationwide grants. For example, a small city needing $5 million to replace a dangerously aging bridge might rely on an earmark secured by their representative; without that tool, that essential project might get shelved indefinitely. The resolution, therefore, is a clear trade-off: fiscal discipline at the cost of direct, localized project funding.

Ultimately, this resolution is a declaration of war against a specific legislative tool. It demands Congress stop the practice immediately to curb debt and address inflation, reaffirming the historical ban on the practice. While it doesn't change the law itself, it is a significant political statement that frames earmarks not just as bad policy, but as a threat to the nation's financial stability.