The long saga of General Services Administrator Lurita Doan has finally come to an end - the White House fired her yesterday. We have posted extensively on Doan's short tenure at the GSA on this blog, in our press room, and in the Watcher as well. It seemed there just was never enough print space to truly capture all the corrupt, illegal, and unethical behavior of Ms. Doan (also see here, here, here, and here).

My only question at this point is, why was she fired now? It's been 11 months since the independent Office of Special Counsel recommended to President Bush that Doan be fired for blatant violations of the Hatch Act - which prohibits the use of federal resources for partisan political activities. It certainly does seem like strange timing, but I suppose I should stop being surprised by the bizarre actions of this administration.

It is time to say farewell and good luck to Administrator Doan. Thanks, Ms. Doan, for wasting our money, helping out your friends with no-bid contracts, hiding the truth by interfering with oversight investigations, attempting to intimidate an Inspector General's office, violating federal law, keeping us entertained at many congressional hearings with your poor memory and shifty ways, and generally, making life interesting here at this watchdog organization. You certainly weren't dull.

Hurling invective at earmarks and deriding them all as wasteful "bridges to nowhere," is a popular theme these days. However, as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has recently demonstrated, adopting a pox-on-all-earmarks position can quickly dissolve into a cafeteria-style earmark policy: "I like this earmark and this earmark, but not that one over there."

Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) plan to abolish earmarks from the federal budget would result in the elimination of U.S. funding assistance to Israel. McCain's presidential campaign responded to the finding by saying that, as president, McCain would "ensure America remains committed to the security of Israel, including maintaining America's assistance levels."

...

McCain has already made an exception for the $3 billion in foreign aid to Israel that is cited by the CRS. But he apparently is still willing to cut the rest of the earmarks in the CRS report. According to an analysis by Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Scott Lilly, that CRS report includes assistance to Egypt, Jordan, and Haiti as an earmark. Moreover, it includes funding for military family housing.

The fact is, there is nothing inherently nefarious about funding Congressperson-requested projects—some projects may be more useful, more appreciated, or otherwise "better" than others, but that a Congressperson has asked for it doesn't make it necessarily wasteful. And calling for an outright ban on earmarks will cut spending on programs that not everyone finds offensive - like the Iraq Study Group, for instance. This is not to say that the earmark process is not subject to abuses, however, but rather than prohibiting a particular spending mechanism, it makes more sense to bring the to the process a level scrutiny that will allow Congress and its constituents to debate the merits of these projects.

For the Hard of Ear-ing

No matter what you want to call it, an earmark is an earmark. If Congressional leaders don't believe that soft earmarks are earmarks, then I think that makes the case as to why we need tougher reforms in place. - Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), on pork-barrel spending

But, to be fair, Flake wasn't quoted here about pork-barrel spending. He was quoted about earmarks. If you're interested in the difference -- and if you writers and editors at the Times are listening -- have a look at this, esp. pp. 3-5.

On the one hand, the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Pig Book is a useful service providing a full accounting of earmarks adopted by Congress and stuck in the FY 2008 budget. Among the leading fun facts, the FY2008 budget includes :

• 11,610 earmark projects worth $17.2 billion
• 337% increase over the 2,658 projects in fiscal year 2007
• 30% increase over the $13.2 billion in fiscal year 2007

On the other hand it equates earmark spending with pork and that tars earmarks projects with too broad a brush. A close analysis -- and guess, what, we happen to have one right here! -- reveals a subtler story.

But don't judge the CAGW 2008 Pig Book by its cover...