I know I'm beating a dead horse, but it's hard not to be impressed (or depressed, depending on your point of view) by the way earmarks and spending reductions are discussed in local communities.

Whenever the subject changes from the generic "earmarks" and the "need to reduce federal spending" to the specific dollars the locality either wants, likes, was expecting, is getting, etc., the discussion changes from how bad earmrks and overspending is to how wonderful the money is coming our way or how the decision will hurt this area.

Here are two more recent examples from the Seattle Post Intelligencer and the Bowling Green Daily News.

Ask yourself this question: Is this the real reason cutting spending and eliminating earmarks are so difficult?