The national debate about congressional budget earmarks is hitting close to home.

Within the last few days, the Journal-World has reported on the $4.5 million in earmarks received by Kansas University this year and the $600,000 earmark request being pushed by the Lawrence Community Shelter. Few local people would argue that this money is going to worthy projects, but is the process by which Congress approves earmarks playing havoc with the federal budget?

According to the federal Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Congress approved about $16.8 billion in earmarks for fiscal year 2008. Earmarks are attached to often-unrelated legislation by members of Congress seeking funding for special projects in their districts. It’s a way for congressmen and women to show that they can “bring home the bacon” for specific projects in their districts.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that the earmarks are adding $16.8 billion in new spending to the budget, but ordering a federal agency to spend a certain amount on a specific project often diverts money from other uses that may or may not be more necessary or worthy. Probably the biggest problem with earmarks is that they are allocated mostly on the basis of political clout, rather than on merit.

Like the earmarks themselves, the process has become a political football. Congressional Republicans and President Bush have called for a moratorium on earmark spending. Democrats, however, find it hypocritical for Republicans to back a moratorium now, when Democrats are in control, when the use of earmarks was rampant during the previous six years, when Republicans were in the majority. As the debate continues, earmarks continue to be added by members of both parties.

Earmarks also have become an issue in the presidential campaign. Republican Sen. John McCain, reportedly has never used a congressional earmark, while Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have requested and received tens of millions in earmarks for pet projects.

In the story about academic earmarks, a KU official made the case that every earmark the university receives is of benefit to the entire nation. Equipment purchased through earmarks helps improve KU research, which helps society as a whole, he said; “These are not a bridge to nowhere.” Likewise, significant local support likely could be found for a $600,000 earmark to help relocate the Lawrence Community Shelter.

But because earmarks bypass a traditional evaluation and competition process, who is to say that the funds earmarked for KU and Lawrence couldn’t be used equally well or even better by another community or another project? Therein lies the rub.

At this point, earmarks have created a system in which it’s natural for every community, every project and every congressional district to try to get its piece of the pie. As the federal budget and federal deficit continue to grow, however, it’s also only natural to wonder if that pie of taxpayer money is being fairly divided and responsibly consumed.