Over the last few years, Congress has devoured legislative pork more like they are licking their chops at their favorite barbecue joint than trying to make fiscally responsible spending decisions. This omnipresent craving has led to record growth in pork barrel spending known as “earmarking.”

Add to this earmarking environment everyone’s favorite lobbyist Jack Abramoff (who showered lawmakers with cash for favors) and everyone’s favorite felon former-Representative Duke Cunningham (who sold earmarks to the highest briber) to the recent growth in earmarks and you have a recipe for the closest thing to a perfect storm for spending reform the nation’s capitol has seen in a long time.

Congress’ addiction to pulling pork to their districts is out of control, and the numbers tell the story. Last year, taxpayers spent $32.7 billion on 15,584 earmarks in every congressional district in the nation. Compare that to just 2,000 earmarks in 1996 and the explosive growth in this practice becomes clear. For this fiscal year, the appropriators’ earmark numbers are slightly off last year’s peak, but the upward trend is clear. This is more likely the result of public attention to earmarking, and calling this year’s dip real reform is laughable, at best.

Also telling is that since 1988 the number of entities procuring “K Street” representation swelled from 1,447 to 4,013. In less than a decade, an entire industry of Gucci-clad lobbyists has sprung up to tap the millions of dollars that can be made acting as gatekeepers to the key lawmakers that decide how the nation spends its money. In this new reality, there are two types of communities: those that have a lawmaker on the appropriations committee and those that are shaken down by some lobbyist promising to get federal cash for your local daycare, park, or community center. By definition, the system has evolved into a pay to play system.

Luckily for taxpayers, some lawmakers are seriously pursuing reform. Current earmarking reform proposals take a two-prong attack. The first is based on the time-tested truism that the sunlight of public disclosure is the best disinfectant for Congressional corruption. With this in mind, these proposals require that every lawmaker’s earmark requests be made public in the Congressional Record. If an earmark is included in a piece of legislation, the name of the lawmaker who got the earmark and the earmark’s essential government purpose would also have to be disclosed. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) endorsed this idea in The Hill newspaper: “The more we know who is offering the earmark, what the purpose is, and allowing members to have a shot at those will in and of itself reduce the number of earmarks.” Finally, legislation would have to be available on the Internet at least 24 hours before a bill is voted on. Our opinion is that the time needs to be longer, but this is a good start.

Any good transparent system of disclosure is sure to reduce, but not eliminate, earmarks. So when a bad one slips through, the second prong of attack allows lawmakers to raise a budget point of order against particular earmarks. This would allow lawmakers to oppose earmarks on the floor of Congress, and a challenged earmark would need 60 votes to survive.

Earmarks are a hot commodity in Congress. Despite too many episodes of Congressmen behaving badly and significant political will to change the current system, the road to real reform is still long and bumpy.

The St. Petersburg (FL) Times, made clear the difficulties of reform in an investigation on earmarks they published last week. The paper asked Florida’s Senators and five of its members of Congress to release all of their earmark requests and divulge all of what they ended up pulling for their district. This is exactly the type of information that would have to be released after earmark reform passes. Only four of the seven even partially complied and most of the offices were uncooperative, just further evidence that lawmakers will say anything to make the problem go away. And then do the opposite.

A gaggle of legislators are tripping all over themselves to talk about the need to reform. But when they are asked to put the money where their mouths are, they clam right up. The request here is simple, however: the nation’s taxpayers have a fundamental right to know what their elected officials are asking for from the federal government. That’s just good government. The more we know, the better opportunity we have to offer lawmakers feedback on the decisions they are making.

Unfortunately, many lawmakers want the politically expedient approach. They continue to keep their constituents in the dark about the pressing issues regarding how Congress decides to spend taxpayer dollars. To Congress, earmarks may seem as delicious as eating pulled pork, but for taxpayers, reforming this broken system sure feels a lot like pulling teeth.