When Jason Chaffetz was campaigning for Congress, he inveighed against so-called "earmarks" -- the practice of slipping appropriations for local projects into larger bills -- and once elected to the Third District, pledged he wouldn't take any in 2009.

Faced with the problem that all federal spending is earmarked in some fashion for a purpose, Chaffetz is now trying to make a distinction between valid expenditures and not-so-valid ones, which are often blasted as pork-barrel spending.

Some might say Chaffetz is taking a constructive step toward fighting true pork-barrel spending. Others might say it shows that the congressman is just learning about real life under the Capitol dome. It might also be wondered if earmarks are really the problem after all.

Chaffetz this week wrote to local leaders asking for their input on how to distinguish between earmarks and what he's calling "congressional directed spending." (His letter and an overview of the main principles involved can be found under the Opinions tab at www.heraldextra.com.)

A general definition is that an earmark is a request by a member of Congress for funding of a specific project, usually in his or her home state or district. What's wrong with that? After all, a lawmaker surely understands his region.

And as Chaffetz himself says, "Utahns continue to pay more than their fair share of federal taxes and the federal government has an obligation to direct some of those funds back to our state."

You'd think Chaffetz would love earmarks by any name.

Critics, however, complain that the bad kind of earmarks, rather than supporting projects that benefit the nation, benefit only specific parties. Too often, it is said, these are agencies or even businesses that can offer a lawmaker a quid pro quo. Sometimes it's just the opportunity to be photographed at the ribbon-cutting of a new bridge or federal office. Those images look nice at election time. But sometimes campaign cash, jobs for lazy relatives or other goodies are proffered as well.

Critics add that the bad earmarks all too often are whisked through Congress with little or no public scrutiny, and few connections to legitimate governmental purposes or to the public's real needs. All this has helped swell the federal deficit without aiding the nation.

So how can a regular person decide if a proposal is an earmark or a bona fide project? That's the problem Chaffetz's criteria are meant to solve. He's calling for a funding process that is open at all stages; in which all projects are properly reviewed by federal agencies and the congressional committees; have a reasonable link to legitimate federal functions; and benefit the American public through a public entity.

That would at least make it clearer what an "earmark" is -- sort of.

Yet where do you draw the line? Utah Valley touts conservatism proudly, but Chaffetz seemingly is under pressure to fund some projects that would meet his criteria -- money for universities, research and development work or military bases, for example.

Yet these can be boondoggles. Consider military bases, for instance. For decades, members of Congress lobbied for installations in their districts, even where there was no military need. It took a special commission later to close some of the less-needed facilities.

In the same way, it's easy to imagine plenty of projects that might superficially meet Chaffetz's criteria that could nevertheless be wasteful or politically motivated.

Of course, Chaffetz and other reformers might reply that any change has to start someplace. Reform bad earmarks, and you might start a trend.

But in the end it must be wondered whether the main problem is really earmarks.

On Wednesday, the government announced that for the first eight months of this fiscal year the federal deficit was $991 billion. That's so astounding it should be repeated in another way: nearly a trillion dollars. And there's no sign of red ink fading. If anything, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats are preparing even more spending, with nationalized health care next on a long shopping list.

Congressional log-rolling is another problem. A legislator who wants to fund a project that's 100 percent virtuous has to get support from other lawmakers. Lawmakers soon find that the only way to get buy-in is to hold your nose and vote for the bills of colleagues. It's a vicious cycle that's been going on for decades.

So Chaffetz's reforms might -- might -- be a good first step. And once a first step is taken, more reform could follow. Or maybe nothing.

Related

• Selling Chaffetz