Granted, the total of all omnibus earmarks is an enormous sum of money. To be sure, however, it only represents less than two percent of the total omnibus appropriation! Is this really worth risking a government shut-down and, more importantly, a legitimate risk of the interruption of necessary government services to the needy? The question I seem to be asking myself ever more frequently: does it really require all this flipping media attention?

Earmarks are often described as 'federal appropriations with zip codes attached', directing specific government revenues to specific government projects and purposes and for, often, from specific government funds, e.g., U.S. Customs fees and fines funding the Child Nutrition Program. So, the upside of earmarks: Especially in hard economic times, earmarks are a good process for infusing large sums of dollars to specific projects and purposes by members of Congress who have an enhanced ability to issue debt to pay for local issues -- a power, generally, not vested in states and cities. So, earmarks can and do have a stimulative effect, which we have seen even in Kansas Congressional District 2, where the replacement of US 75 from Topeka north to Holton (1991-1997), the Amelia Earhart bridge linking Kansas and Missouri in Atchison (2010-2011), and even a remarkable soybean polymer at Pittsburg State University have all been paid for by federal earmarks. Members of Congress, also, are likely in the best position to move large sums of money quickly to local areas devastated by disaster in order to invest in the social and economic rebuilding.

Earmarks, like all legislative instruments, do come with some mud if left unfettered and do have some other negatives. These funding vehicles erode the capacity of bureaucrats and government administrators to adjust priorities (yes, earmarks actually are a more Democratic form of spending in this regard); increase the likelihood for overspending in government projects, even where competitive bidding is present; and impair deficit reduction efforts due to the long-term funding nature of many of the earmarked projects. Without doubt, we also learned with devastating results for the now minority party that earmarks and the earmarking procedure was in dire need of reform with a growing scandal centered around a DC lobbyist, Native American tribes having or seeking new or expanded gaming destinations, and golfing trips via private jet to Scotland.

Growing transparency seems to be fixing the problem, although not entirely, and continued media coverage of the subject will undoubtedly bring the transparency issue home to many Congressional members representing rural districts in coming elections, increasing the transparency of the earmarks requested by Congressional members. While some enhancements of current law may be necessary to fix earmarks, it's important that Congress and the media not overreact and make the laws over-restrictive to react to disaster, be it natural, economic or otherwise.

In the end, the media and politicians have been hellbent on earmarks in recent weeks, even though, as seen, earmarks ain't all bad! This focus is a distraction from the real issues and represents a red herring until the minority comes up with a better plan for moving forward. Seriously, stop the damn bellyaching and let's have a legitimate dialogue about the immediate and long-term future.