Earmarks and Total Spending

The model is completely wrong though. Earmarks are what are used by congressional leaders to bribe lower level congressmen to vote for their bills.

Agreed, I don't understand how that reduces spending. If earmarks allow more statist laws to be passed then i don't see how allowing more earmarks reduces spending. Take the bailout, if earmarks were illegal it wouldn't have passed, had all earmarks been illegal, gov't spending would be lower.

Also government is an awkward world of economics, in that in earmarks, the more earmarks you get, generally the more the other guy gets.

Congress may simply use all available tools to maximize total spending. Even after securing reelection they might opt to seek prestige projects, this model seems plausible though.

Also, where is the error that warrants the (sic) ?

Seems pretty reasonable to me. It all hinges on assumption 2 being correct though.

JPIrving,
"sic" is usually translated to "thus", "so", "as such", "in such a manner", or "naw, really", not "wrong". It simply asserts that the editor has left the statement intact, not that he or she is necessarily calling attention to an error, although that is certainly the most common usage. It is also handy in situations such as this where a reader may reasonably initially suspect that the author intended to write something else and made an error or that the editor did not copy the statement correctly, which would lead to confusion in understanding the point the rest of the post proceeds with.

I would try this:

1. Earmark projects are those that the strongest constituent groups at very local levels desire most.

2. Other government spending is actually the larger budget items, willed upon the electorate by central planning initiatives.

3. Therefore, spending on earmarks first will satisfy the electorate and guarantee that large, centrally planned initiatives are left both unsupported and unfunded.