>Can someone explain to me why earmarks are now seen as always bad? Doesn't a Senator or Rep have a reponsibility to try to secure funding for projects in their home states? Sure, some projects may be pork, but surely not all of them are?

If I am not mistaken, earmarks are added to a bill without any or with very little scrutiny and often they are added after the bill has been passed.

So, they are really "freebies", and that is why they are considered "bad" unless you are on the receiving end.

I think amendments and earmarks should not be allowed on a bill unless they are relevant to that particular bill. Maybe there should be a quarterly "earmark" bill in which all of the pork is placed. They should all be subject to some rules and a lot of public scutiny.