I haven’t read Rich’s piece yet, so I don’t know if I’m disagreeing with him or not. And I should say from the outset that I have no problem with the current jihad against earmarks. Faster, faster, kill! Kill! is my attitude on the subject. But for the umpteenth time let me just register my complaint that earmarks are a symptom of a larger problem (which is not to say that this sympton doesn’t exacerbate other problems).

I keep hearing John McCain and many, many others say that earmarks drive the lobbying “problem.” This is flatly untrue. In 1956, the Encyclopedia of Associations listed 4,900 groups. Today, I believe the number is over 27,000. Earmarks can only explain a tiny fraction of this increase. The real reason is big government in general. The growth of regulatory agencies and the administrative state creates the incentives for lobbying far more than Congress’ ability to build bridges and museums in home districts. Congressmen have been doing that sort of thing for two centuries.

It is the explosion in the scope and size of federal involvement of all kinds that creates the need for lobbying. Companies don’t want to lobby, they rightly conclude that they need to. And most often they are right. Indeed, the logic used to denounce earmarks is identical to the logic which indicts big government generally. Economists will correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am. The incentives to lobby for pork and regulatory favors are pertty much the same. Indeed, regulations on employment, trade, taxation, environmental policies etc. affect the bottom lines of major corporations far more than mere pork barrel budget padding. On the one hand you have a politician with the power to reward and punish and on the other you have industries and interests eager to be rewarded and eager not to be punished. Earmarks are just one manifestation of this more basic phenomena. From 1970 to 1980, when 20 new federal agencies were born, the number of lawyers in Washington roughly doubled to 40,000. That had almost nothing to do with earmarks.

McCain doesn’t like earmarks. Good, fine. But he loves regulation. If he thinks the number of lobbyists in Washington — or their tactics — are going to change significantly because it becomes harder for Congressmen to build stupid highways he’s nuts. And so are all of the other reform zealots. Similarly, “reforming” campaign finance won’t change the equation either because even fully-funding campaigns won’t change the incentives for interests to protect themselves or rent-seek. Such reforms will only change the means by which they act on their interests. The only way to reform government permanently is to shrink government and not just its spending but its meddling. Until then we’re just fooling ourselves.