I agree that the current system is easy to abuse and these abuses should obviously stop. I still think earmarking should be used however, to stop beaurocrats from wasting the allocated money. In my experience of driving down county roads in the oil industry, the amount of waste directly traceable to beaurocratic waste is very evident. I'm sure there are better examples, but that is the one I have the most personal experience with. I know the current system has been made into a joke. I just don't believe blindly handing money to beaurocrats is wise.
I will agree with the other posters that the system has some serious problems but under a republican democracy I'm not sure that earmarks in themselves are a bad thing. In the end we want our representatives to help out our districts and the nature of a republic isn't that our representatives necessarily serve the rest of the country but that they are there to serve us their direct constituents. I think in a situation where the earmark power is removed we will find our representatives less able to fulfill their duty to their constituents.
Which sounds hideous; until I sit back and wonder how things like the Civil Rights Act got passed when there wasn't a single black Senator and, what, one Congressman. Did every single one of those 535 states-rights Republicans and blue-collar union Democrats finally see the light? Or did LBJ, of all people , promise to get them a highway, airport or Space Center to support it? If only there were a political party commited to restrained government spending. I mean, one that didn't want to also legalize all drugs and prostitution in their first 100 days.
Which is strange, since I thought (ie read on Wikipedia) that his district historically supported him even when he voted against earmarks that would have helped them. I guess recessions and wars turn cowards and hypocrites into us all.
