My point, and I think I made is explicitly, is that earmarks are an inherently corrupt process by which legislators buy favors at home with our tax money. The best piece of evidence for that, and against the Senator's argument, is that you rarely see a member of Congress setting aside a substantial earmark for a worthy project in someone else's district. Surely, if earmarks were the tool for directing spending wisely and in a Constitutional fashion, then he would have sent a few earmarks toward needed projects elsewhere.

You are absolutely right that the best thing would be for projects that are now funded as earmarks to be pursued instead in the open legislative process. As a practical matter, I don't think that will happen any time soon. Therefore, it really is a question of who gets to spend the money: the executive branch or the legislative branch. You seem to concede as much in your response to the first Inhofe quote in your post. As long as that is the case, then my answer is always that it should be the legislative branch that chooses, be the process by which it chooses ever so ugly and corrupt. Persuade me that it is practically achievable to reform the legislation and appropriations process to exclude earmarks without shifting the money and responsibility to the executive, and I'll be on your side.

Have you read any of what James Joyner or Doug Mataconis have written on this subject? I'd be interested to see you interact with their views.

Earmark Reform: Who Decides How Tax Money is Spent?

Rand Paul, The Tea Party, And The Phony “War On Earmarks”

By the way, the photo at the top doesn't depict depict a smoke-filled back-room in its "film of origin" ("M", one of the greatest films ever made). It shows a Stammtisch (regulars' table) in a 1920's Berlin pub, where citizens congregate over a drink and the day's papers. It's kind of the in-crowd of the middle-class citizens. These things usually aren't in back-rooms, though they may be in a desirable nook of the pub. But because it is a clear mark of status to be admitted to the Stammtisch, there is value in it being visible to the occasional customers who find their way in to the establishment.

I especially love this little passage by the Senator: "To be clear, there are many spending proposals that should be defeated. But we should defeat them based on the substance …"

I've seen a curve ball up close and personal, and that's no curve ball. That looks like a hanging slider over the heart of the plate at about 70 mph.

But, I want to be sure I understand your point, Senator. You're implying, then, that earmarks are generally placed out there in the noonday sun so all can take a look and figure out the merits of their "substance". Do I have that right? They're not stealthily buried on the nine-hundred-sixty-third page of some bloated bill. And they are never the offspring of mutual back-scratching in the cloak room? Right? OK, then. When are you up for election?

By what measure is the admitted value of the Big Dig greater than the graft involved in producing it?

Fantastic post, BTW.