PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: I can’t say that I’m surprised to hear this: Voters Want Less Pork, Even in Their Own District.
Conducted in late June, the poll surveyed 800 voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46%. Likely voters were asked the following question: “All things being equal, for whom would you be more likely to vote for the U.S. Congress: 1) A candidate who wants to cut overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district or 2) A candidate who wants to increase overall spending on federal programs, as long as more federal spending and projects come to your district?”
The results were unambiguous. Fifty-four percent of general election voters chose the frugal candidate, compared with only 29% who chose the profligate candidate. Republicans overwhelming favor less federal spending, 72% to 17%, with independents close behind at 61%. Only Democrats prefer more federal spending, but only by a plurality. Thirty-six percent of Democrats chose the more fiscally conservative candidate, with 42% choosing the alternative. . . . Voters across America don’t see their elected officials “listening” and “providing.” Instead they see spending that is wasteful, prone to corruption, arbitrary and inefficient.
In particular, the connection between earmarks and corruption — and the use of earmarks to buy votes for big wasteful spending bills — means that the damage done by profligate earmarking is much greater than the earmark price tag alone suggests.