A few folks who understand the federal appropriations process better than I explain why appropriators are secretly trying to ban agencies from releasing their “budget justifications” for a few months after the appropriations committees get them next year. As they view it, it all comes back to the issue of earmarks.

The budget justifications show what an agency would like — not what they get: e.g., the Osprey, all those contractors in Johnstown, Pa., etc. This way critics won’t be able to say, “But they didn’t ask for 10,000 Ospreys!” or “They didn’t ask to have their headquarters moved to Johnstown!”

And:

It is not unusual for these documents to bash earmarks or to suggest that the agencies have priorities that don’t include politicians’ earmarks. Given the recent DOT inspector general report…it doesn’t surprise me that they want to muzzle agencies.

That IG report looked at the effect of earmarks on the Department of Transportation budget. Although it does not directly attribute deteriorating bridge conditions to the earmarking process, it isn’t hard to connect the dots — it says that because of earmarks, many low-priority and even normally ineligible projects get funding, while the Department of Transportation’s core goals are left unfunded. Appropriators don’t usually like the negative publicity that comes from funding peace gardens and bicycle paths while bridges go unfixed — particularly when said bridges collapse.