>I would agree with you completely if it wasn't for this:
>http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/02/07/earmarks_0208.html
>
>Washington — U.S. House Republicans, including all seven of Georgia's GOP congressmen, failed Thursday to impose an immediate moratorium on the use of congressional earmarks.
>
>The moratorium was killed on a procedural vote of 204-196, with all Republicans and seven Democrats — including Rep. John Barrow of Savannah — voting for it.
>
>"House Republicans regret Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi's decision to keep the earmark factory open," Rep. Jack Kingston, a Savannah Republican who sponsored the moratorium legislation, said about the defeat.

Does this mean there were two Rs from Savannah who both voted against the moratorium (as all Republicans did) even though one of them sponsored it? Or have I lost my reading skills?

>If they had voted this through, then I think Congress could have demonstrated a true commitment and earned the respect of the public. Still, last year was a good start.

But then, of all the gov't waste, earmarks are at least spent locally, creating employment, infrastructure etc. If earmarks are a way to suck up to the voters - I don't see how are they worse than sucking up to the big corporations. At least, the former are the boss, officially. Remember the rule of acquisition #33: It never hurts to suck up to the boss.