There are many reasons to oppose federal earmarks and pork barrel spending. They’re wasteful and inefficient; they promote corruption and kickbacks; and, as was vividly demonstrated with the “Lousiana Purchase” and the “Cornhusker Kickback” during the Senate Obamacare debate, pork barrel spending can be used to persuade congressmen to support outrageously expensive legislation they would normally oppose. Further proof of the pernicious effect of earmarks comes from a new study by the Harvard Business School — “Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?” — that concludes federal pork kills jobs and stifles local economies.

Using data spanning four decades, Harvard researchers measured the effects on local businesses as their local congressmen grew in stature in Washington. The study correctly assumed that when a senator or representative acquired a powerful committee assignment, he would exploit his new position to funnel more money to constituents back home. But the Harvard researchers also assumed — incorrectly, they would discover — that local businesses in a member’s home state or district would benefit from opening up the federal largesse.