From Newsday (Long Island, N.Y.) — Originally published Wednesday, April 15

Earmarks aren’t the unmitigated Washington waste they’ve come to symbolize. At their most benign, they provide a way for elected officials to deliver federal money for worthwhile local causes, without being forced to move heaven and earth — not to mention the entire federal government — in order to do it. …

Of course, when you’re talking government and money, there’s always the potential for wasteful excess and corruption. With earmarks, what’s needed is a tighter rein on the amount of money spent, greater transparency and closer scrutiny to ensure that they broadly benefit the region, rather than simply help incumbents win re-election.

Congress is on the right track, due in large part to the spotlight on earmarks during the last presidential campaign. Spending is down and transparency is up. Spending peaked at $23.7 billion in 2005 and, by 2008, had dropped to $18.3 billion before ticking up to $19.6 billion in 2009. …

Most of the requests won’t actually win funding. The lists will be whittled down in House Appropriations subcommittees. That’s critical if the concept of earmarks is to survive at all. …