It's true that earmarks are a vehicle for (real or perceived) corruption, as well as a part of a culture that leads to reckless overspending. But the biggest problem with earmarks is simpler than that--it's that earmarks prevent competition, by definition. Every time there is an earmark--here in Washington or in the state capitals--that means taxpayer dollars will be spent on a project without the proper merit-based competitive bidding process that assures taxpayers get the best product or service at the best price. Corruption or not, that's wasteful and a failure to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars.

I was reminded of this today when I received a compelling marketing package from Texas-based Colortex Wall Coating Systems. Colortex has a product that coats walls with durable urethane coatings in heavily-trafficked areas, which it claims is much superior to Sherwin-Williams paint that received a Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) earmark which Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has criticized. In an exchange on the House floor, Murtha suggested we would withdraw the earmark if a superior product exists. I'm not holding my breath.

Now, I'm not qualified to decide whether the Colortex product is a better value for taxpayers than the Sherwin-Williams product. But neither is Jack Murtha. This sort of purchasing decision should go through a merit-based process. And that's one of the reasons earmarking is so wasteful--it substitutes political judgment for merit-based judgment in the spending of taxpayer dollars.