While members of Congress love their earmarks, their constituents shouldn't. Here's why:

Earmarks are fund allocations for specific projects inserted in legislation by members of Congress. Usually, members add these projects secretly because they're often done at the behest of various special-interest groups.

Over the past 15 years, there has been a disturbing trend toward more (and more expensive) earmarks in Congress. According to Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, authors of The Broken Branch, the number of earmarks rose from 892 in 1992 to 13,997 in 2005. Not only are the numbers a problem but so is the expense of the earmarks.

In 1992, earmarks constituted $2.6 billion in spending. By 2005, the cost was $27.3 billion. About one-half of earmarks today go for transportation bills. In 2005, there were 6,371 earmarks inserted in a single transportation spending bill.

Why have earmarks become so popular with Congress members? Imagine being able to give a gift to someone you want to impress, without using your own money to do it. That's what members of Congress are doing.

Earmarks are a way for members like Chris Cannon to use federal dollars to reward groups - both within and beyond their constituencies - who want federal money for their particular projects.

Thanks to earmarks, Congress members can boast they got money for some special project back home. The infamous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska is the most egregious example, but others also may be just as frivolous.

What does that mean for the taxpayer? It means that a lot of federal money is being doled out based not on the merits of the project but as a political favor.

How would this money be allocated without earmarks? First, some of these projects would never be funded. They only exist because a powerful member of Congress wants them. In other cases, though, there are real needs for new roads and bridges.

But the political process that governs earmarks doesn't distinguish the valuable projects from the stinkers. It never can. Only non-political agencies that have no stake in which project gets funded can best determine what projects should get priority and by how much.

Cannon is correct that eliminating earmarks doesn't automatically reduce the federal budget. But if members were not allowed to earmark projects, a lot of those projects wouldn't be funded by any objective process based on merit. That would reduce the federal budget deficit.

Another problem with earmarks is the secrecy that surrounds them. Most members refuse to say what earmarks they've placed in bills and why. Secrecy raises suspicion. Why hide what you're doing from the public?

Rather than defend earmarks, Cannon should do the following:

1. Announce all of his earmarks by putting them on the main page of his Web site. No more hide and seek. If earmarks are so good, he should have no problem announcing all of them.

2. Support the effort by four members of Congress to pass a package of recommendations on earmarks. One of them would allow earmarks to be stricken from bills on the floor of the House and the Senate. Another would require each member of Congress to disclose interest in any project.

3. Earmark reform should go even further. The number of earmarks a member can attach should be limited, perhaps to no more than one per appropriations bill.

That would at least mean the number of earmarks would be reduced to no more than 435, rather than more than 6,000 for one bill alone.

Earmarks are wonderful for Rep. Cannon. But as constituents, we should be suspicious. After all, we're the ones footing the bill.

---

* RICHARD DAVIS is chairman of the Utah County Democratic Party.