Hurling invective at earmarks and deriding them all as wasteful "bridges to nowhere," is a popular theme these days. However, as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has recently demonstrated, adopting a pox-on-all-earmarks position can quickly dissolve into a cafeteria-style earmark policy: "I like this earmark and this earmark, but not that one over there." Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) plan to abolish earmarks from the federal budget would result in the elimination of U.S. funding assistance to Israel. McCain's presidential campaign responded to the finding by saying that, as president, McCain would "ensure America remains committed to the security of Israel, including maintaining America's assistance levels." ... McCain has already made an exception for the $3 billion in foreign aid to Israel that is cited by the CRS. But he apparently is still willing to cut the rest of the earmarks in the CRS report. According to an analysis by Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Scott Lilly, that CRS report includes assistance to Egypt, Jordan, and Haiti as an earmark. Moreover, it includes funding for military family housing. The fact is, there is nothing inherently nefarious about funding Congressperson-requested projects—some projects may be more useful, more appreciated, or otherwise "better" than others, but that a Congressperson has asked for it doesn't make it necessarily wasteful. And calling for an outright ban on earmarks will cut spending on programs that not everyone finds offensive - like the Iraq Study Group, for instance. This is not to say that the earmark process is not subject to abuses, however, but rather than prohibiting a particular spending mechanism, it makes more sense to bring the to the process a level scrutiny that will allow Congress and its constituents to debate the merits of these projects.