First, they claim that eliminating pork projects won't reduce federal spending. This old chestnut is horribly misleading. Earmarks are mostly carved out of the budget, so if we get rid of them we can easily reduce the size of the budget. Pork is also infamously used to buy votes. Huge spending bills receive overwhelming support when they otherwise wouldn't because it's quietly understood that if a lawmaker wants his earmarks, he must vote for the overall bill. This breeds egregious spending on a very large scale.

Second, earmarks aren't subjected to budgetary controls that are designed to curb wasteful spending. Pork projects circumvent congressional hearings, competitive bidding, and proper oversight. Had the "Bridge to Nowhere" - an earmark supported by both Bennett and Hatch - been put through those rigorous tests, it would have never been approved.

For almost 200 years, our government survived on budgets that contained few earmarks. We need to return to that kind of fiscal responsibility.

Andrew Roth

Club for Growth

Washington, D.C.