The debate over the efficacy and even-handedness of the new House earmarks disclosure rule continues. The rule requires that earmarks’ sponsors be identified by name in legislation and conference reports. It expires when the 109th COngress adjourns, unless re-adopted by the new House next year. The issues of the definition of earmarks and whether any tax expenditures would really qualify are reviewed in a meaty article today by BNA. George Yin, the most recent former chief of staff of the JCT … said he finds it hard at times to 'distinguish' between an appropriations earmark and a tax earmark. He said one has to look at the bottom line and see if there is a big difference, for example, between a company getting an appropriations grant and the company getting a special tax ruling. Also: under the earmark language the lawmaker inserting the specific tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference still would not have to attach his or her name to the measure because it would not be considered an earmark if it benefits more than one entity. Possible solution? The next House might want to consider a “single beneficiary sector” tax expenditure standard based on SIC codes, as opposed to the current single "entity” appropriations standard they current applies to tax expenditures.