The Hijacking of Public Funds: Brazil’s Parliamentary Amendments vs. America’s Earmarks – A Tale of Fiscal Recklessness
By Laiz Rodrigues-Editor
In an era where governments worldwide grapple with ballooning deficits and taxpayer fatigue, the mechanisms by which politicians allocate public money reveal much about a nation’s commitment to fiscal conservatism and accountability. Nowhere is this more evident than in the stark contrast between Brazil’s parliamentary amendments and the United States’ congressional earmarks. As we enter 2026, Brazil’s system stands as a glaring example of unchecked government spending and political patronage run amok, while America’s approach, though imperfect, demonstrates a modicum of restraint and transparency. This comparison underscores a scandalous reality: in Brazil, what should be prudent budgeting has devolved into a brazen vote-buying scheme that rigidifies the economy and erodes public trust.
Let’s start with the sheer scale of the scandal in Brazil. In 2025, President Lula’s administration disbursed a staggering 31.5 billion reais – equivalent to about 5.7 billion U.S. dollars – in parliamentary amendments, marking the highest nominal amount ever recorded in a single year. This wasn’t a one-off; the government had authorized nearly 48.5 billion reais, with projections for 2026 ballooning to an eye-watering 61 billion reais, or roughly 11 billion dollars. These figures aren’t just numbers; they represent a hijacking of the federal budget, as critics, including Lula himself in moments of candor, have aptly described it. Over the past decade, these amendments have exploded from around 9 billion reais in 2016 to these unprecedented levels, fueled by reforms that made a significant portion – about 83% in 2025 – mandatory. This means the executive branch has little choice but to execute them, turning what was once discretionary spending into an obligatory handout to legislators.
The scandal deepens when you consider the nature of these amendments. Rooted in Brazil’s coalition presidentialism, they allow congress members to direct funds to local projects, ostensibly for community needs like infrastructure or health. But in practice, this has become a tool for clientelism and outright corruption. With 2026 being an election year, the timing couldn’t be more suspicious – these payouts secure legislative support amid fiscal constraints, echoing infamous scandals like the 2005 Mensalão, where monthly allowances were doled out to buy votes. Ongoing investigations by federal police and the Supreme Court into deviations and lack of transparency only highlight the rot: public money funneled with minimal oversight, often benefiting political allies rather than the needy. It’s a system that rigidifies spending, limiting the government’s flexibility to address national priorities like education or debt reduction, all while burdening taxpayers in a country already strained by economic inequality.
Now, contrast this with the United States’ earmarks, which, while no stranger to criticism, operate on a far more controlled scale. Earmarks were banned from 2011 to 2021 precisely because conservatives recognized their potential for abuse as “pork-barrel” spending. Upon their revival in 2022, they came with strict transparency rules: public disclosure, no financial interests for members, and evidence of community support. In fiscal year 2024, earmarks totaled between 15 and 23 billion dollars, a fraction of the 1.6 to 1.8 trillion dollars in federal discretionary spending – representing about 1% or less. For 2025, due to a full-year continuing resolution, earmarks were effectively stripped out, keeping totals low. Unlike Brazil’s mandatory behemoth, U.S. earmarks remain discretionary, added optionally to appropriations bills as “grease” to facilitate compromise without dominating the budget.
The major differences are telling. In Brazil, amendments are entrenched and obligatory, consuming a disproportionate share of flexible spending – often 20-30% or more – and entrenching a culture of dependency and deal-making. In the U.S., they’re capped, revocable, and marginal, allowing for greater executive control and fiscal discipline. Brazil’s system fosters inequality by prioritizing local pet projects over national needs, while America’s, post-reform, at least pretends to accountability. Both can be accused of vote-buying, but Brazil’s version is on steroids: larger proportionally, less transparent, and more prone to scandal, as evidenced by the “secret budget” era ruled unconstitutional just a few years ago.
This disparity isn’t just academic; it’s a conservative wake-up call. In Brazil, under leftist leadership, we’ve seen how big government expands to crowd out private initiative and reward cronyism, leading to a “sequestro” of the budget that stifles growth. America, with its federalist roots and recent earmark reforms, offers a better model – one where conservatives have fought to limit such excesses, as seen in the 2011 ban. Yet even here, vigilance is key; earmarks can creep back into abuse if not checked.
The scandal in Brazil is profound: billions siphoned in a way that mocks fiscal responsibility, perpetuating a cycle of corruption that conservatives everywhere should decry. It’s a reminder that true conservatism demands not just smaller government, but accountable one – lest we all fall into the trap of politicians treating the public purse as their personal slush fund. As taxpayers in both nations watch their hard-earned money vanish into these schemes, the question remains: How much longer will we tolerate this fiscal farce?
