Partial ban on earmarks is a start

To paraphrase a bad joke, what do you call a boat full of earmarks being deep-sixed?

Answer: A good start.

The U.S. House, believe it or not, may be about to ban earmarks for corporations. Democratic leaders announced a ban using earmarks in appropriations bills to spend funds on projects to benefit specific companies ... companies which, perhaps not coincidentally, contribute to campaigns.

U.S. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., Appropriations committee chairman, told The Associated Press on Wednesday he hopes the ban will mean 1,000 fewer earmarks.

The AP report states research by Taxpayers for Common Sense found last year's defense appropriations bill contained 1,720 earmarks worth $4.2 billion.

We expect the House ban on corporate earmarks will resonate well with voters. But, as stated at the onset here, it's a good start. We suggest others in Congress - Republicans? Senators? - propose extending the ban to all earmarks, including those for pet projects which benefit home districts.

This proposal may carry too much political risk for incumbents. After all, if trading public funds for corporate donations is unethical, then using public funds for pet projects in the home district to please constituents is wrong, too.

But we think voters are sufficiently worried about deficit spending and the national debt to accept this change. If not, perhaps the voters deserve what they get.

Regardless, the status quo for federal finances surely is sinking the nation in debt.