Forget George Carlin's classic "Seven Dirty Words" comedy routine.

If you want to spew some vile words in the halls of Congress, your repertoire should probably include the word "earmark." 

Earmarks are generally defined as funding allocated or set aside for specific projects and programs in a member's district.  Throughout the years, earmarks have come under fire as frivilous spending mainly meant to bolster the re-election chances of the Congressman from that area.

In recent years, fiscal watch groups have targeted earmarks as one of the reasons the budget and the deficit are out of control in Washington, D.C.  At a recent news conference, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) praised earmarks and noted that they have been a part of American government since the beginning of the country.  Reid said this:

"I have been a fan of earmarks since I got here the first day.  Keep in mind, that’s what the country has done for more than 200 years, except for the brief period of time in recent years that we haven’t done these."

Our partners at PolitiFact decided to look into Reid's claim that earmarks have been around for more than 200 years.  PolitiFact reporter Joshua Gillin says that Reid's claim rates MOSTLY TRUE on the Truth-O-Meter.  Gillin said that Reid is basically right that they've been around that long, but have not been used consistantly throughout the history of the United States.

"When we did the research, we found that there was actually a bill called the Lighthouse Act of 1789 that was passed by Congress," said Gillin.  "That bill called for funds to be allocated to the construction of lighthouses all along the Atlantic seaboard.  A section of that bill, put forth by the Pennsylvania delegation along with the help of a special interest group, allocated funds for a pier construction project in Philadelphia.  The Senate Historical Office saw that as the first earmark in United States history."

Gillin points out that earmarks, while dating back over 200 years, haven't always been called for on a consistent basis.  "What we also found was that earmark legislation has basically ballooned in the last twenty years," said Gillin.  "Before that, Congressional use of the earmark was more of an exception rather than the norm.  Fast forward to 1994 and earmark spending doubled in the following ten-year period, rising from 1.3 percent to 3 percent.  That was an increase from $218 million to $500 million."

Gillin notes that even if such appropriations spending is vetoed by the President, the request can still be considered an earmark.  Gillin says that Reid was right that there were earmarks that go back well over 200 years, but it's also a misrepresentation to apply the earmark spending behavior of today to the last 200 years.  Because of that, Reid's statement rates MOSTLY TRUE on the Truth-O-Meter.

SOURCES: 200 YEARS OF EARMARKS