John Fund's well-written piece in the today's Wall Street Journal online about earmarks overstates the case and misses the point.

Yes, President Bush has the ability not to spend many of the earmarks Republican and Democrats listed in the report accompanying the omnibus spending bill he signed in December, but doing so is likely to cause him political harm rather than establish the positive legacy Fund thinks will occur.

First, it is too late for this president to establish a positive political legacy on earmarks. In his first six years in office, he presided over -- that is, proposed, approved, signed, and spent -- the largest growth in earmrks in U.S. history.

Second, whether or not the White House and Fund want to admit it, earmarks are popular. Take a look at this, this, and this, all from the past few days.

Fund also seriously overstates the case that a decision by this president not to spend these earmarks will be good politics akin to what Ronald Reagan did when he fired the striking air traffic controllers. Unlike Reagan, Bush is not running for reelection.  Not spending the earmarks is as likely to hurt congressional Republicans who are on the ballot this November because they will have a hard time explaining to constituents and local news media why their being in Congress is of value. If you can't get the president from your own party to help your district, what good are you?