A few facts to get you started:

Truth:    The non-partisan National Journal rates Chris Cannon as more fiscally conservative than 96% of House Members -- a stronger fiscal rating than even Congressman Ron Paul.

Truth:    Congressman Cannon was given a 96% pork free voting record on government spending by the Club for Growth – one of their best scores.

Truth:    Chris Cannon LED the successful fight to keep internet access tax free.

Truth:    The NRA has awarded Chris Cannon an "A+" for his work to protect 2nd Amendment rights  -- the highest grade possible.

Truth:    Chris Cannon holds the highest lifetime rating for any member of the Utah congressional delegation by the American Conservative Union.

Truth:    The lowest lifetime rating for any member of the Utah congressional delegation from the ACLU belongs to Chris Cannon.
  
Truth:   Chris is the Chairman of the influential Western Congressional Caucus, a leading organization in Congress devoted to providing a united voice for the interests of western states, energy development and common sense access to public lands.

QUESTION: I'm asking for clarification on a statement Congressman Cannon made during the meet and greet in Riverton, the afternoon of 12 April.As I recall the statement:  "...earmarks neither increase nor decrease the amount of funding budgeted for a particular bill."  To me, that indicates that, at worse, an earmark will reduce the amount of money dedicated or intended or necessary for the purpose of the original bill or resolution.  I think I'm confused or, at least, I misunderstood Congressman Cannon's comment.  I fail to see how earmarks do not affect the budget.  I would appreciate further explanation of how earmarks affect the budget.

ANSWER: Thanks for an excellent question.  Earmarks, such as the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, have become a symbol for excess government spending.  And to the extent they bring attention to the fact that the goverment DOES spend too much, they are a useful symbol.  However, the reality of the appropriations process is that earmarks are, in fact, specific directives regarding how to spend money that is already in the Budget and will otherwise be spent anyway.  In other words, due to the flawed spending process, if Congress does not direct that money be spent for an overpass in Springville or an EPA grant for another Utah community, the only result is that an Appropriations Committee Chairman or the Speaker of the House will direct it elsewhere.  The absence of the earmark would not, in itself, save the taxpayers a nickel.

Many Members of Congress routinely oppose earmarks, as do I in the vast majority of cases (The Club for Growth gave me a 96% "pork free/taxpayer friendly" rating.).  The reason conservatives like myself often oppose them, however, is not that the price of a specific earmark will be "deducted" from what the government spends for that given year.  Rather, it is a way of expressing a firm belief that the government does too much, and therefore, spends too much -- a point we must make over and over again.

In short, by the time Congress approves an individual earmark, the money has already been "spent".  The key to reducing government spending is to reduce the programs and the overall appropriations from which earmarks are designated in the first place.  My record is clearly one of doing just that.