In doing so, Republicans are hoping to tap into growing public concern about federal spending, and stand up to the kind of projects that have become reliable late-night punch lines over the years, like bridges to nowhere, teapot museums and studies of pig odor.
But at a local level, there remain many supporters of earmarks, who argue that they play an important role ? solving basic and urgent infrastructure needs in communities ? that is often lost in their cartoonish portrayals.
?I don?t really care what it?s called ? I?m mostly concerned about what the money is going to be used for,? said Francis G. Slay, the mayor of St. Louis, whose deteriorating flood-control system along the banks of the Mississippi went unaddressed for years until Senator Christopher S. Bond, a Republican, accelerated the slow-moving project with help from an earmark.
?How can anyone vilify one of our representatives,? Mr. Slay added, ?who has gone out and basically forced the federal government to fund a project that is essential to our ability to protect the property and the people of St. Louis from major flooding??
Money can take many different routes from budgets in Washington to projects in communities. The vast majority is allocated through the decisions of federal bureaucracy, which often uses formulas to rank priorities, or by the states themselves, where critics say the money is often distributed as pork anyway, only by governors and state lawmakers instead of members of Congress.
Earmarks, which for all their controversy account for less than half of 1 percent of total federal spending, allow lawmakers to specify how money is used in their home states. If they were eliminated, Congress would cede more authority over spending decisions to the executive branch.
The fate of earmarks remains unclear because the Republican ban is, at present, voluntary, and Democrats have not yet responded to a proposed moratorium.
Critics of earmarks contend that even the most legitimate projects ought not be financed through a process that rewards influence and sidesteps normal procedures. But in some towns and cities, supporters say these earmarks provide the shortest and most direct route to paying for road, water and sewer projects. The flood-control walls in St. Louis are cited as an example of an earmark that solved an urgent problem.
During the Midwestern floods of 1993, the Mississippi here reached to the steps of the Gateway Arch, peaking just two feet from the top of the flood walls.
Though the decades-old walls held, unlike the barriers in many surrounding communities, the flood caused substantial damage and exposed systemic problems. In one area, the river channeled beneath the wall, forcing emergency repairs. Calls came from all sides to prepare for the next flood.
Like many other projects involving highways and bridges ? so long as they go somewhere ? spending to repair the St. Louis flood-control system has not been controversial. But getting the money for the work has taken years.
The $20 million project, which is scheduled to be completed at the end of 2012, has been praised by fans and foes of earmarks as a straightforward and cost-efficient effort to patch up an aging series of levies, flood walls and floodgates. The Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that a breach could cause more than $1.2 billion in damages.
?I can?t say I?m in favor of earmarks, because I always thought they were someone?s favorite little pet projects,? said Greg Piel, a vice president at the Commercial Plating Company here, whose family business had to be ringed with makeshift levies in 1993 after the river channeled under the man-made barrier into his parking lot. ?I wouldn?t call the repair of a flood wall for a city a pet project. That?s an absolute must.?
Mr. Piel paused and added, ?It?s really easy to cross the line between needs and wants.?
Even if the projects themselves are deemed worthy, debates arise over whether they should be financed through Congressional earmarks. Last week, Representative Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican who leads the Congressional Tea Party caucus and has been strongly critical of earmarks, made an exception for them. She was quoted as saying that she did not consider infrastructure projects like roads and bridges to be earmarks because of their importance. The comments immediately drew challenges.





