The President wants them gone and Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Dave Obey has steadfastly resisted pressure to allow them, so why is Congress still talking about earmarks?
The Washington Post explains:
...Democrats now in charge of spending on Capitol Hill say they will not allow those narrow, special-interest provisions when they introduce a resolution this week to fund the federal government for the remaining eight months of the current fiscal year. Those unprecedented ground rules complicate an urgent matter, for unless Congress can agree on a new spending plan by Feb. 15, the government will shut down.
But what precisely is an earmark?
That question has been at the heart of passionate negotiations across the capital as lawmakers, federal agencies and lobbyists argue over what constitutes waste and what is legitimate spending.
The debate goes beyond semantics. The stakes are huge -- deciding how to spend $463 billion between now and Sept. 30 on thousands of programs run by local communities, states and federal agencies. While public debate on Capitol Hill has been dominated by the war in Iraq, closed-door arguments about what the federal government will fund this year have been nearly as intense.
Earmarks will probably return in FY 2008, but thanks to a campaign promise kept, they will have to be attached to a member's name. Ending the practice of inserting anonymous earmarks into spending bills is an important first step in appropriations reform, and will help restore faith in Congress, as well as the budgeting process.