Many politicians and many individuals think that “bringing home the bacon” is an important, if not the most important job of an elected representative. There is, however, a difference between representing the interests of your district and serving as a cash cow for special interests. I believe that most people in this country do not see their representatives as and do not want them to simply be ATMs servicing the highest bidder (the ones with the best connections/make the most in campaign contributions/or even bribe). We want them to be representatives of our interests both local and national.

The seemingly obvious line between legitimately promoting the interests of your constituents and being an unethical pork-barrel spender, is bribery. Short of bribery (think Duke Cunningham; earmarking money to a defense contractor for cash via a grossly inflated selling price on his house, or Rep. Jefferson taking cash in exchange for promises to perform services) it gets a little gray, but still we can find lines for ethical and proper behavior.

Earmarking is a problem when it is done out of sight from the public and when it serves to subvert competence, and quality in the spending of our tax dollars. If a representative is indeed pursuing the interest of his or her district, he or she should have no problem with letting everyone in the world know about his/her actions, whom is benefiting from these actions and exactly how much of our tax dollars they are receiving.

The reality, however, is that earmarks are often used not to promote the common good (even when the “common” referred to is restricted to the district or state), but to promote particular individuals, corporations or programs at the expense of the common good. If a service, bridge, interchange or new joint strike fighter is important enough to merit funding, then come out and ask for it, on the floor in front of everyone. The current earmarking scheme takes away nearly all of the benefits of competition and innovation. Those who are willing to pay the most on lobbyists, squeeze out (sometimes illegally) campaign contributions or simply are lucky enough to have roomed in college with Representative A, receive their earmarks, sometime regardless of the quality of the services they will render or the overall return on investment for the spending of our tax dollars. Earmarking is in its essence anti free market.

I realize my tirade is not directly answering your question and is bordering on Graysonesque (sorry G-thing, could not help myself), so let me change focus.

Senators Stevens and Byrd, as well as Inouye, Bond, Kennedy and Representatives Young, Murtha, Obey and many others are surely gaining votes by securing money in their districts. I have not seen any studies on this, that is studies to determine how much federal appropriations influences re-election rates as opposed to name recognition from incumbency, quality of opponents, party strength, or the myriad of other factors that play in elections, but I too believe securing funding is effective, and at the very least many representatives think it is. A little historical tidbit-prior to 1995, most “pork” went to the powerful; leadership and members of appropriations committees. Part of Gingrich’s…brilliance?…was to use federal dollars to shore up weak incumbents or individuals in marginal/non-secure districts. But there are a couple of other points.

People want to be represented. An elected official who loses touch with his/her constituents will not long last in office. Determining “interests” is complicated, but simply selling your services to your friends and those who are willing to pay to be your friends eventually will catch up to you. It will catch up to you because you will lose sight of the actual interests of your constituents. Oh, wow, thanks for this awesome brand new six lane highway, I just wish I could drive on it, but I can’t afford gas because it is too expensive, I can’t use it to go to the doctor because I am unable to afford health insurance and, well, I’m too scared to spend my money b/c I think Social Security will collapse and my job is likely to be shipped to India.

Finally, we elect representatives to act as participants in a national legislature. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a representative must only pursue the parochial interests of his/her home state or district. I am a current DC resident and a Missourian by birth/culture, but I am also an American. Our elected representatives need to prioritize the spending of OUR tax dollars and better balance the competing interests in order to ensure they are tackling what actually matters and doing it in a rational, efficient manner.

Ultimately I have faith in the American people. And I am not the only one.

—As far as my perishing. Alas, I am born again!

While this is certainly an excellent distributive reporting tool, I wonder how people will continue to react to hard evidence of congressional graft. For instance everyone knows that Senators Stevens and Byrd are essentially looting the treasury, but that’s precisely why they get re-elected. Any thoughts on this?