The flow of federal dollars to the states and localities is not determined solely by what the federal government wants, as if it were some sort of independent actor whose goals are determined in isolation from national and state-level politics.
The federal government is composed of a variety of contending and sometimes conflicting forces, including our very own elected members of Congress in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. State congressional delegations represent the various districts and states from which they come. By design, the laws, programs and ultimately budgets of the various federal agencies are significantly affected by politics and needs back home in each state and locality. This is how representation in government works.
This fact comes through clearly when we look at so-called earmarks, predetermined allocations of tax revenues for specific purposes. When they reach the states, such allocations become known as dedicated funds when they are incorporated into state budgets (much like that portion of Texas gasoline taxes dedicated to highway construction). On the national level earmarks refer to specific language that requires spending on specific projects, usually in a single district or state, inserted into bills. Earmarks are also known by another, more colorful name: pork.
The federal omnibus spending bill - a spending bill that includes funding for a wide range of departments and programs - for fiscal year (FY) 2004 offers some interesting detail about how efforts by lawmakers and local interests influence some of the federal spending in the states. Not all of this spending involves the state bureaucracy, but in many instances such funds find their way into the budgets of state agencies.
In the FY 2006 omnibus spending bill, many of the states with the biggest population grabbed the most pork via earmarks. The usual suspects, California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida all were among the top ten states in terms of the dollar value of federal earmarks. California alone received almost three-quarters of a billion dollars. This does not even count the many billions it receives through other federal aid. The other large states received anywhere from about one-quarter to over half a billion dollars. This does not even count the many billions it receives through other federal aid. The other large states received anywhere from about one-third to half a billion dollars.
But let's not fall into the trap of believing that the total value of each state's earmarks reflects the naturally greater needs of more populous states. Political factors in Congress affect these outcomes, too. More people also means more members in a state's congressional delegation, which means more political support (i.e., votes) in Congress for earmarks for that state.
Another important political factor in determining how much each state receives in earmarks is having powerful senators and representatives sitting on the Appropriations committee of each chamber of Congress. Alaska is a good example. It received the highest amount in earmarks in FY 2006, yet it has only about 650,000 residents, about the same number as live in metropolitan Austin (not even close to the largest city in Texas). Alaska also has Senator Ted Stevens (R), a 35-year Senate veteran who packs seniority and political clout into a powerful home-state advantage in the stampede for pork.
Texas has one senator and four representatives serving on the respective Appropriations committees in the two chambers. Committee members get first crack at adding local projects to the 13 individual spending bills that are rolled up into one annual omnibus bill. Members with the most seniority and party leaders receive extra privileges, while rank-and-file members just pass wish lists to friends on the committee in the hope of getting a few crumbs. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) joined the Appropriations committee in 1997, and is the fifth highest ranking Republican (as determined by seniority) in the Senate. Her presence on the Appropriations committee and her very high seniority rank gives Texas an important seat at the (dining) table.
As this discussion and this chapter's feature A Selection of Earmarks for Texas illustrate, the considerable tide of money for local projects and programs under the direction of state or local bureaucracies often originates in the very state or local district where the money will be spent. Federal aid to the states and localities doesn't always reflect a coercive federal government's desire to shape programs on the lower governmental levels. Instead, states and localities use their influence in the federal government to get things that they want. As a result, state and local bureaucracies develop in ways that would not be possible without federal money - but the impetus for such development often comes from the states themselves.
