The New York Times has a story today on pork barrel spending which highlights the large sums appropriated for soft earmarks.  Clearly we have a problem with pet projects getting the green light through committee reports, winks and nods.  True, many projects may be worthy of funding.  However, until we remove special interest campaign contributions from the equation and enact public financing it will be a way to reward donors not voters.  Publicly funded elections, as set forth in the Durbin-Specter Fair Elections Now Act (S. 1285), are the best way to achieve sensible spending priorities in the Congress.

Friday's Washington Post featured a letter to the editor from Sean Parnell, President of the Center for Competitive Politics.  It misses the point, although I agree that "better scientific, enonomic, and policy arguments" should be the focus of debate.