Banning earmarks is a start

Banning earmarks is a start

Columbus Dispatch: Banning earmarks in federal spending won’t do much to eliminate annual deficits of more than $1 trillion, but the apparent momentum in Congress for an earmark moratorium still is good news, for one simple reason: If Congress can’t rein in this practice, what hope is there of real budget reform?

Earmarks, in which representatives and senators can direct funding to pet projects by slipping provisions into unrelated bills, are a potent way to win favor back home and reward campaign contributors and other supporters. ...

An anti-earmark groundswell has made converts of some, including Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who recently stunned politicos by declaring his support for a ban. Heretofore, McConnell has been a staunch defender of earmarks as a way to preserve Congress’ authority to direct spending, rather than leaving all allocation decisions to executive-branch agencies.

He also has been a prodigious producer of pork for his home state.

Skeptics say an earmark ban merely will be symbolic, because earmarks make up about one-third of 1 percent of the federal budget. But a nation so deep in the red has to learn how to cut spending, and starting with the least-defensible spending is a logical first step.