Originally Posted by Yo Adrian

Lindsay Beyerstein of The Campaign Silo wrote on September 12, 2008:

?It's good to call out McCain and Palin on their hypocrisy, but I'm concerned that this discussion reinforces the idea that earmarks are inherently shameful.

Earmarks are not intrinsically frivolous or scandalous. They're riders on appropriations bills that allow members of Congress to set aside money for a particular organization, project, region, or program.

It's nonsensical for Palin to claim to have opposed earmarks as governor. Not only is she lying, she's saying something that, if true, would establish her incompetence as a governor. It is Palin's job to work with the Alaska's congressional delegation to get the best possible deal for Alaska.

McCain likes to claim that we could save tens of billions of dollars by eliminating earmarks. Like so many of his claims, this one is false. Most earmarks aren't even new spending. Usually they're just more specific directions for spending money that has already been allocated for a particular purpose. Let's say $100 million has already been set aside for bridge repairs. A member of Congress might add an earmark stipulating that $2 million of that money will go to widen a specific bridge in greater Peoria. Without the earmark, bureaucrats in the executive branch would have divvied up the bridge money. It's not clear that they would have made a better, or less politically motivated, decision.

We're all familiar with flagrant earmark abusers like Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) who use earmarks to fund boondoggles like the Bridge to Nowhere and pay off their cronies at public expense. However, we should be careful not to conflate earmarks with pork or corruption.?