In his discussion of earmarks on the NYT op-ed page last Friday, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus argues that not all of them are nefarious. Echoing an observation we made last year, he cites the Iraq Study Group as an example of an earmark who made good. Emanuel then goes on to indulge in a little modest horn-tooting about earmarks disclosure: I've voluntarily gone beyond the requirements of our reforms by posting on my Congressional Web site all the earmarks I've requested, not just those that have been approved. I'm gratified that a number of colleagues from both parties have followed that example. It's not clear how many of his colleagues Emanuel himself emulated in his own disclosure practices, but he certainly could stand to do so if he wants to set an example. There is some irony in this, given his remark that "Now, in the space of a few months, the new Democratic Congress has taken earmarks out of the shadows while cutting their cost by half." Have a quick look at the Congressman's earmark disclosure website. Do you notice anything missing? How about cost accounting? In the list of his 24 earmark requests, Emanuel identifies the cost of not a single one of them. Don't get the wrong impression, Emanuel is still in a tiny minority of members of Congress just identifying their earmarks requests and deserves credit for this. But in case anyone wonders, here is the industry gold standard.