This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Thursday, April 10th, 2008.

I'm Caleb Brown.

Money earmarked for bridges to nowhere and statues of Dr. Seuss strike most people

as egregious uses of federal taxpayer funds, but earmarks don't

increase federal spending. And they're not just used as handouts, they're used as weapons

to ring a few more votes for legislation that could be far worse than the earmark.

Jeff Patch, a Budget Fellow at the Cato Institute, says even those who fight earmarks vigorously

don't agree on a common definition of the word.

So where did the issue come from?

I think the issue stem a lot from corruption in

and how the Republicans handled earmarks and spending.

There was some very high profile scandals with former Congressman Duke Cunningham and

Jack Amroof that I think really pushed the willingness for congressional leaders to enact reform

into the forefront and I think that really contributed to a lot of Democrats

winning it closely contested races that President Bush had won in 2004 because spending

was such a big issue and I think the general population sort of viewed Republicans as breaking their

pledge to be fiscal conservatives and

earmarks were sort of sort of icy on the cake for that for that view.

It's easy to point out an earmark. It's easily understood. It's not a huge

piece of spending, but it is extremely egregious and it can get people really upset.

But what is the fiscal impact of earmarks on the federal budget?

People often look at earmarks,

...