Republicans in the House and Senate have vociferously favored earmark reform in recent months. As a political maneuver, it was extremely shrewd and came at a very favorable time for the minority party. However, the method and execution of earmark reform that culminated yesterday in the failure of an earmark moratorium to pass in the Senate might have weakened Congress’ ability to adequately address line-item abuses well into the future.

With an economy spiraling into the toilet and a climate of skyrocketing national debt, Congress is looking for ways to finally cut spending. The war on earmarks has yet to be christened as such, but it is apparent that these Congressional devices are the new targets for cost-cutting. Earmarks in simple terms are line item appropriations inserted into Congressional bills that funnel money into particular interests or constituencies. Earmarks that make the final cut are required to be disclosed to the public, but in those that are disapproved do not, and the public relies on the goodwill of the original sponsor to disclose the nature of the request (which doesn’t often happen). As a result, earmarks on the whole have been portrayed in the media and popular discourse as highly secretive bits of “pork barrel” spending that inflate budgets and divert taxpayer dollars into projects that benefit only a few. In many instances, this is certainly the case. The most infamous example of pork earmarks is the Gravina Island Bridge proposal contained within the 2005 Transportation Equity Act. Commonly known today as the “bridges to nowhere” project, the three sponsoring earmarks totaled $315 million of taxpayer money. The pork barrel project became notorious overnight and garnered the GOP a great deal of criticism, especially when Alaskan senator Ted Stevens threatened to quit Congress if the money was not appropriated.

The dependably idiotic phrase “playing politics” comes into full thrust here, but not in the way most Congressman are used to parlaying the phrase. Few members of Congress could safely oppose such a moratorium both because of their own involvement in the earmark process and because of American feelings about line items. The Republican Party is aware that public conception of government waste has been much more associated with them in their 12 years as a majority party in Congress than with the most recent two years of Democratic majority. Although John Boehner and Mitch McConnell show no sign of relenting attacks on the Democrats for cutting the most holes in the Congressional purse, it’s a hard point to argue when the GOP majority had been steadily approving pork-laden bills for the past decade. Thus, the only option left to the minority leadership also turned out to be the most politically divisive.

The proposed moratorium looks great on paper. It captures the long bygone spirit of the Republican Party as the party of tight budgeting and opposition to waste. Furthermore, since the GOP hastened to the idea first, it tars Democrats as the main perpetrators of the insidious earmarks. Although they could argue that Republicans were the guiltier party, most Democrats cannot cloud their own junky history with earmarks. Hillary Clinton, for example, came out in support of the moratorium, perhaps because she was ranked the senator with the 10th highest earmark value appropriated last year ($342 million).

Republicans are not averse to the idea of earmarks, they’re averse to earmarks proposed by Democrats (and vice versa), which is why I’m suspicious of the one-year duration of the proposed moratorium. Such a measure would expire in the middle of 2009, only a wee bit into the next Congressional term which Republicans hope to regain their foothold that was lost two years ago to the Democrats. Although this sunset was promoted as a get-out-of-jail card in the event of the moratorium’s failure, it’s hard not to view the one-year duration (and the moratorium itself) as a publicity stunt. Like Lindsay Lohan sequestering herself in rehab until public irk simmers away, proponents of this moratorium reek of simply buying themselves a blind-eye once again to continue the dealings as usual.

Much like Alcoholics Anonymous or abstinence-only education, a moratorium or prohibition on something that not only everyone participates in, but has an innate compulsion to carry out, will not work to the desired end. What few like to admit, either in Congress or media discourse writ large, is that earmarks are not necessarily a bad thing. Senators and representatives are elected by their constituency to go to Washington and address their needs as citizens. Different people want and need different things. For example, a farmer living in Idaho’s fourth district is not going to want or need highway appropriations in transportation bills to address crumbling bridges or roadways that someone living in Minneapolis/St. Paul might be concerned about. Earmarks should be treated as a physical dependency rather than a crime. A way to avoid the orgy of hypocrisy allegations would be to rally behind a bill providing much more transparency to the line-item process, regulations on closed-door legislative sessions, and caps on line-item sponsorships. Since I can foresee now that no legislator with the exception of perhaps a Dennis Kucinich can go cold turkey from earmarks, I can only view the proposed (and failed) moratorium as “playing politics.” Let the scrunched faces begin.