But J. West hints at a real Unholy Trinity in Washington (the subject of a book I enjoyed fifteen or sixteen years ago): lobbyists, Congressional staffers, and party apparatchniks, Democratic _and_ Republican.

A lot of liberals say what non-liberals say: Perhaps letting all citizens divide up the federal spending “pie” and allocation money to various kinds of activities (such as military or social spending or environmental cleanup and preservation or “earmarks” for truly-needed infrastructure repair or new projects) . (Lay aside the issue of if such activities are actually constitutional; for 40-70 years or more, liberals have not cared; just assume for this exercise that Washington can do whatever Americans want it to do — that's the de facto situation, anyway). I'd rather see nation-wide periodic polls of such pie-division requests than have things done in secret and not necessarily with a great deal of expertise.

And let's give the President the line-item veto that's needed, or at least give him or her the veto over amendments, if not ban amendments to bills altogether.

That's the price of a deli sandwich versus a night out for the whole family at a decent restaurant.

Most people who oppose earmarks aren’t arguing against the federal government funding needed projects in the states.

What is objectionable and out of control is the secrecy and lack of accountability of earmarks being slipped into bills in the middle of the night – sometimes without any way of tracing them back to their authors. Also, these earmarks are written for specific projects that are normally to benefit some person or group who has spent lavishly on lobbying.

If there is a special project that needs federal funds, let the sponsors bring it to the floor in the light of day for a vote. For other state needs, allocate the funds to the state and let them decide their own priorities.