This article reveals that the President's own budget includes thousands of special requests similar to earmarks.

The Hypocrisy cocntinues. But is can be resolves through a system that apporpriates these federal expenditures proportionately to all congressional districts rather than favoring political parties.

Rather than have the federal government take taxes and redistribute it, in the form of entitlement programs (which are meant to go directly to individuals, as US rather than state citizens*, and evade the criticism you posted; the entitlements are stimulative but the taxation is the reverse), or worse, in large block grants (or someday, the equivalent of Canada's “equalization payments”), it's better for the federal government to cease and let the citizens, states, and localities decide what they choose to do and have in their societies.

* There is no general grant of power to the federal government — dishonest people try and fail by referring to the “general welfare” clause, “necessary and proper” clause, etc., and most laughably of all, the Preamble — but having US citizenship, which we've had since the Civil War, does open a legal Pandora's box.

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm

EXCEPTION: It's an election year. So, we get the stimulus vote-buying gimmickry from Bush himself, not just those trying to bid him to spend more money on it.

Also, Bush's proposed defense spending increase must have made some Dems privately laugh. This is a budget that is dead even before arrival in Congress.

That said, the earmark concern seems to match Bush' use of veto. Congress couldn't pass him a budget increase he wouldn't sign when the Republicans were in charge. Now that the Dems are, suddenly spending must be under control.

Its good legislation, but the timing of it couldn't be more craven.