Dean Baker had an interesting post yesterday in his blog about how best to determine whether earmarks have grown. It's Dean Baker in the best Dean Baker tradition, that is, insisting that numbers be put in context.

Comparing Earmarks: Measure Against GDP

The NYT ran a piece showing the decline in earmarks in spending bills over the last three years. The article shows the dollar value of earmarks fell by more than 10 percent from 2005 to 2008. It would have been useful to compare the value of earmarks to GDP. Since nominal GDP rose by more than 15 percent over this period, the value of earmarks relative to GDP fell by more than 25 percent over this period.

It also would have been worth mentioning that the total value of earmarks for 2008 is projected to be less than $17 billion, approximately 0.5 percent of total spending. Even if earmarks were eliminated entirely, it would not have a very large impact on the budget.

But...One key point Dean misses is that earmarks in dollar terms or as a percent of GDP or the budget are not the only appropriate measures. As important as the economic stats is an acounting for the number of members of Congress who receive earmark in any year. That's the number that provides some perspective on how earmark politics are changing.

For example, if the dollar value of earmarks is the same this year as last (by any measure you want to use) but they went to half the number of members of Congress as the previous year, I would argue that shows an important change that should be noted.