I don’t know if this story is 100 percent true, but it was told by someone I trust: A member of the DC Council asked Mayor Fenty to set aside $5 million in this year’s budget for the Washington Ballet. The mayor agreed, but there was concern that it might look bad to direct so much money to one organization – and a pretty elite one at that. So they chose to list this item in the budget merely as a $5 million “Economic Development Grant” program – no mention of the Washington Ballet at all.

Councilmember Kwame Brown, chair of the committee overseeing these funds, had different ideas for that “economic development grant.” He decided to spend the $5 million on other things, including childcare and job training, but also on his own pet organizations such as the Washington Jazz Arts Institute and the Capital Breast Care Center.

This got the supporters of the Washington Ballet hopping mad (or perhaps plie-ing mad), and they fought once again on $5 million for the dance group. They got it, not by reversing Councilmember Brown’s actions but by making the list of earmarks larger.

Earmarks in the Budget: $30 Million and Counting
Maybe the most surprising thing about this story is that someone felt embarrassed enough to try to hide the Washington Ballet’s earmark. The budget just adopted for 2008 is rife with millions of earmarks – appropriations for specific organizations – from the Caribbean Festival to the American Lung Association. I haven’t done a scientific analysis, but this practice seems to be gaining popularity in the Wilson Building.

By my count, the 2008 budget includes at least $30 million in earmarks. In the end, this is a small share of the city’s nearly $6 billion budget, and canceling all of them would not change the city’s finances much. But that’s not really the way I look at it.

For one, the earmarks often are huge to the groups getting them. I’m sure the Washington Ballet is ecstatic over its $5 million gift from DC taxpayers. As is the Corcoran Gallery of Art, which got $8 million from the city last year to fix its roof. Or Arena Stage, which got a $25 million commitment from the city in recent years for its capital campaign. These non-competitive awards must look enormous – and enormously unfair – to the many deserving groups that don’t know how to play this game or who choose not to play it out of principle.

The earmarks also look large when you realize that most of the DC budget goes to maintaining existing services – police and fire, schools, healthcare, etc. – leaving only a small amount available for new initiatives each year. The 2008 budget includes just a $7.5 million increase to tackle DC’s severe affordable housing crisis, for example, and that took a lot of advocacy. In this light, the Washington Ballet’s $5 million looks downright huge – and inappropriate.

Why We Should Eliminate the Practice of Earmarks
The elected officials who push these deals may convince themselves that they’re doing the right thing – helping groups that do good work, getting around over DC’s cumbersome contracting processes. But if that’s the case, why do so many of these happen under the radar?

To be sure, many earmarks go to seemingly worthwhile purposes. And in some cases, earmarks reflect a partnership between the DC government and a nonprofit – such as the Medical Homes Initiative being led by the DC Primary Care Association with a goal of expanding access to primary medical care throughout the city.

Nevertheless, earmarking public funds to individual organizations is wrong on lots of levels. First and foremost, public money should be for public purposes, not private groups. As much as I love the Arena Stage, it’s not clear why the District should cover a huge share of the theater’s expansion, especially when there are lots of public infrastructure needs going unmet. The District sorely needs more emergency shelter space for families with children, for example.

Second, even if an earmark goes to a group doing work with important public benefits – like DC Special Olympics – there almost always are other groups doing the same or similar thing. Yet organizations that lack connections or political savvy lose out when money is given out through earmarks. These may be the ones who need it most – such as small community-based groups.

It is far more fair and transparent when funds are distributed through a competitive process. This is, by the way, the norm for the distribution of most DC grants. The District announces funds are available for a certain purpose, lays out the application guidelines, and explains the criteria that will be used to judge applicants. This allows more groups to benefit – and helps focus resources on groups that have demonstrated the ability to use the funds well.

Getting rid of earmarks would not be easy, but it could do a lot to improve faith in government. That’s a goal that all elected officials should be willing to devote their resources to.