The issue of legislative earmarks might be the most abused in all of politics. Politicians go about beating their breasts, accusing purveyors of money to home districts for special projects as sinful.

Recently, the lay of the cards brings an unusual degree of this scorn on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee who, for her own part, invited the abuse by making a point of having rejected earmarks, particularly the "Bridge to Nowhere," that Alaskan icon of infamy. She was for it before she was against it, they say, and critics can list other earmarks her state has received during her tenure.

Politicians would do us a favor by treating earmarks, otherwise more affectionately known as "pork," with the respect they deserve. We should examine more closely the purposes to which earmark money might be put and open up the secretive method members of Congress have used to garner the cash, but the very idea is worthy.

Palin and others would do well to proclaim from their highest podia, "Let’s hear it for pork," then set about explaining proper rules for governing the process. Our own senators, Kit Bond and Claire McCaskill, no doubt would agree, though soon after her election McCaskill herself took a turn around the track opposing earmarks, per se. Maybe her attitude is a bit more nuanced now. We might want a bit of pork from her larder one day, properly crafted and openly achieved, of course. We already are in the habit of receiving such favors from Sen. Bond. He might legitimately bear the title "King of Pork," one he would not try to deny. Grateful recipients such as MU will not be critical.

The very idea of smallish amounts of money being made available for spending by each and every congressman and senator has a certain genius to it. How else can odd projects be funded around the country that would have no way of receiving attention in the regular cumbersome legislative process? Who says these projects are certain to be classic boondoggles? Let us see that they are not.

If local interests can persuade Sen. Joe or Rep. Sally to fork over for a pet project, that’s a good thing, provided we can avoid personal conflicts of interest and have a decent discussion of options. The way to do that, of course, is to have an open process in which each proposed project is laid on the table for viewing by everyone, including the folks back home, before the legislator has final say.

The idea of reforming earmarks is gaining favor in Washington. This is the thing to do rather than consider doing away with them altogether. Politicians like Palin should send it right back to critics with this message: "People who say they want to eliminate earmarks usually are hypocrites. They should be insisting on a proper process instead, and I’ll admit we should have done that in Alaska, just as every other state should do."

The Alaskan bridge should not have been funded, but with a better vetting process the good people of our northernmost state could have found commendable uses for the money. If you say earmarks are handed out politically, you are right, but what other process do we ever use for the distribution of our public moneys? Our best protection is an open process.

Any father who thinks he’s all-important should remember this country honors fathers only one day a year. Pickles get a whole week.

Advertisement

Get your brain and body in shape. Food Wednesdays, Pulse Sundays and Sports daily. 13 weeks of everyday delivery for as little as 29¢ a day. Get the Tribune. Get a lot.