@Markerrag -- I can't say I agree with that for a number of reasons. For one thing, they don't cost as much as people have claimed. Believe it or not, $10.7 billion was a drop in the bucket in 2007 when the total federal government expenditures came to $2.73 trillion. Considering the deficit that year was $161 billion, you'd have to look at many more places than earmarks to crack down on government waste.
Also, a lot of earmarks go to pay for local projects that help bring jobs to districts. Isn't that why we send people to Congress? To help out with projects that will benefit our communities?
You seem to be saying that there needs to be more oversight over earmarks so that we can cut down on government waste. It is hard to argue against the notion that some of that $10.7 billion was wasted on projects that were neither necessary or beneficial. Still, that money paid for a lot of projects that did help out the districts where the money was spent. We don't want to eliminate the good stuff just to clamp down on the bad, do we?