Earmarks

Fox News analysts were discussing earmarks this morning. This seems to be some confusion in terminology, which we ought to straighten out.
The term "earmarks" has a bad connotation. To the general public and apparently also to the government, it means "pork" spending, which in turn means specifically wasted money. A well-known example is the designation of money to a congressional district to build a bridge for a road that went nowhere. In this case, the congressional district obtained federal tax money, which put local people to work building a bridge. However building the bridge was an exercise in futility, much the same as the other traditional example that digging a hole and filling it in makes work, but there's no gain.
On the other hand "earmarks" is the designation of funds for specific projects. The more general descriptive term is "targeted" spending. In this case, "targeted" spending means the designation of funds for specific operations. The targets may be unreasonable, in which case, they would qualify as "earmarks", or the targets might be legitimate operation. Such legitimate spending would be illustrated by House funding for a program to sell off all Veterans Administration physical facilities in a program to convert the VA to a market system. Another example of reasonable target spending would be the allocation of funds to Homeland Security for the purpose of detecting nuclear bomb devices from entering the country. An example of an "earmark" would be to put an additional 1000 security inspectors on duty at the Lubbock airport.
As we consider the above examples, it becomes apparent that "targeted" spending must be an inherent part of government operations. But obviously, judgment must be made as to whether the targets are logically justifiable or fall under the category of "earmarks". Since the House of Representatives allocates funding, it must also be quite careful in specifying uses to which said funding will be applied. Up to now that has not been the case. The House has passed bills for funding which easily allow the misdirection of many of those funds to "earmarks". This will obviously require more work on the part of some members of the House in defining the specifics of the funding operation, but that is their job. Many Representatives see their job as bringing porkbarrel or earmarks back to their home district. That view is justified by voters, many of which say to candidates, "What funding have you brought back from Washington for our district?" In other words, voters are demanding earmarks. But it is also the responsibility of Congress to do the right thing for the country, which many times will avoid acceding to local public demand for earmarks. This puts the future of their job more in jeopardy, but the question is whether candidates have sufficient character to do the right thing or whether they will fall into the deep pot of satisfying a local demand for deceit, with resultant detriment to the country as a whole.
One way to reduce the heat on congressional candidates is to establish term limits on their allowable duration in office. Knowing that they will be out of a job at a specific time will then encourage them to do the right thing in funding allocations. However, few people in any kind of a job will automatically declare a self-imposed date of resignation. Congressional members are no exception. It will be up to voters to change their attitudes from considering only their local situations to that which includes the total good for the country. As we look at the $17 trillion debt, which has been caused by unreasonable targeted funding, the public could possibly be made aware of the fact that the country could become bankrupt and no longer a desirable place in which to live. This will require some real selling, but it seems to me possible. Our founding fathers put their lives on the line to establish a total government, which if successful would be advantageous for all parties even at the local level. The present situation is no different in concept. The big difference is that there were only a couple of dozen founding fathers who could affect the position. We now have millions of voters.