As 19^th century French political economist Fredric Bastiat once wrote, “the state does not and cannot have one hand only. It has two hands, one to take and the other to give.” The former hand is the rough hand of government, and as evidenced by a recent report produced by the Office of Management and Budget, powerful politicians seem perfectly willing to engage in legal plunder for their constituents.

According to House Appropriations staffer Jim Dyer, prior to the 2006 elections, an unwritten rule among members of the Senate Appropriations committee held that 60 percent of earmarks went to local projects important to the party in power, and 40 percent went to projects deemed necessary by the minority party. The result was a legal taking of property for non-public ends by elected officials of both parties, particularly by the politicians in possession of senior committee status.

To Inouye and Stevens, taking from others to give to favored constituents is their job; it’s what they think they must do to get re-elected.

Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), he of “Bridge to Nowhere” fame and the former Chairman of Senate Appropriations, brought home earmarks in 2005 worth $1,044 per Alaskan; the most per capita of any state. When asked by USA Today about all the largesse he secured thanks to heavy taxation of non-Alaskans, he calmly stated, “We’ve done a lot with earmarks to address needs that other people don’t know about or care about.” Federalism be damned.

Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye, the highest ranking Democrat on the appropriations committee in 2005, brought home $432 million in extras that year, and at $339 per Hawaiian, ranked behind only Stevens in securing the fruits of others. Talking about U.S. involvement in Iraq in a 2005 speech, Inouye asked, “Should we impose our will upon other lands?” Evidently in the case of Iraq, no, but when it comes to taking funds from non-Hawaiians to fulfill constituent desires, Inouye believes it is his “responsibility to ensure that the needs of Hawaii’s residents are brought to the attention of Congress, and to the greatest extent possible, addressed and satisfied.”

Remarkably, when both Inouye and Stevens were quoted on earmarks, neither expressed even the slightest bit of remorse that in order to satisfy their own narrow interests, others went without. To them, taking from others to give to favored constituents is their job; it’s what they think they must do to get re-elected. Still, as Bastiat said, “to use force is not to produce, but to destroy.” Government in the end is force. Indeed, if it weren’t, Americans wouldn’t go through the annual hell that is filing tax returns.

And that’s what legislators of both parties forget when they expropriate the production of the diffuse many for the narrow needs of their constituents. Just as wealth production would grind to a halt in the face of frequent theft, so too will we produce marginally less as we learn more about the wasteful private projects toward which a portion of our earnings are forcefully directed.

John Tamny is the editor of RealClearMarkets.