Liberal bloggers and the mainstream media have been reporting on Sarah Palin's complicated history on The Bridge to Nowhere pork project. Think Progress says Palin is "lying" about her role, while the media is more accurately pointing out that she supported the project before later opposing it, and refused to send the money back to Washington afterwards.

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis echoes the "she lied" meme and adds:

How many days in a row do McCain and Palin have to lie about her position on earmarks - she was for the Bridge to Nowhere, but every single day on the stump she outright lies and says she was against it - how many days in a row do Palin and McCain have to treat the media and the voters like chumps before someone in the media calls her on this?

I don't know if that rises to the level of a "lie," but Barack Obama has been on the stump saying Palin switched her position for political gain, not principle. The Club for Growth has hit back today, pointing out that Obama voted for the Bridge to Nowhere funding and has yet to formally change his position:

"Barack Obama spent the better portion of yesterday attacking Sarah Palin for supporting the Bridge to Nowhere once upon a time even though she had the courage to get rid of it as governor. Yet, when Barack Obama had a chance to kill Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere and spend the money on Katrina victims, he voted -- drum roll please -- No."

"And over the last three years, Barack Obama hasn't changed his tune one bit. He has not disavowed his 2005 vote in favor of the Bridge to Nowhere. And he continues to vote to save specific, egregious earmarks. In 2007, Obama was given the opportunity to vote for an amendment to transfer money earmarked for bicycle paths to fixing America's bridges. He voted against the amendment. He was given the opportunity to vote for an amendment to eliminate earmarks for a Peace Garden in North Dakota and a baseball field in Montana. Barack Obama voted against teh amendment."

The invaluable Brendan Nyhan links to today's New York Times story which puts the actual monetary effect of congressional earmarks into proper context. The Times' David Kirkpatrick reports they make up less than 1 percent of the federal budget. As Nyhan explains:

Like welfare and foreign aid, the cost of earmarks as a proportion of the federal budget are vastly exaggerated. Sadly, I'm guessing most stories today will omit this necessary context. 

Several congressional reporters and bloggers, myself included on both fronts, have placed perhaps too great an emphasis on the prevalence of earmarks. However, I do believe there is justification for this bit of fiscal obsession. Excessive spending is often difficult to communicate as an issue, whether you are a reporter or an activist. Earmarks are symbolic of that issue and translate into a rare economic narrative that resonates with voters. They also are a perfect example of lawmakers from both parties circumventing the electorate to pursue projects that otherwise would likely not gain popular support. So, while their literal burden on the taxpayer may be dwarfed by other budgetary matters, they are still very important symbolically. Unfortunately, this administration has finally caught on to that, and now seeks to use them as a tool of political convenience, rather than to seriously address the philosophy of fiscal restraint. But that should not diminish their importance to individuals who believe that the government does too much, or should be more transparent and effective about what it chooses to do.

Check out CQ’s wonderful new House Appropriations earmark finder:

“CQ examined 5,670 earmarks, totaling $4.2 billion, attributed to a single sponsor in the eight House-passed fiscal 2008 spending bills that contained earmark lists under new disclosure rules. The data were culled from spreadsheets created by the advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense, which aggregated sponsor names, project descriptions and dollar figures from committee reports for each of the spending bills.”

As a former congressional reporter with a particular interest in earmarks, I can attest to the exceptional value of this project, which was put developed by top CQ Politics staffers like Jonathan Allen, so you know it’s good.

You can find the individual earmark requests for members like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or “bridge to nowhere” requestor Don Young

The only thing missing from the project, unfortunately, is the full-cooperation of the House:

“Excluded from this analysis were roughly 1,000 projects, totaling $1.5 billion, that were attributed to multiple sponsors.The House Appropriations Committee did not disclose what share of each multiple-member earmark should be credited to each lawmaker who wrote a letter on its behalf.”

Nonetheless, if you’re a reporter, professional government watcher, or just interested in where your tax dollars are being re-directed, it’s very much worth checking out.