Transparency needed for earmarks

To the editor:Voting to kill the DeMint amendment was a vote for the status quo and against transparency and accountability. The meaning of earmarks in the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 covers only about 5 percent of projects. Sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Senate Amendment 11 broadened the definition of "earmark" and put real meaning to the bill in terms of reform. Bottom line, why is Washington so afraid of transparency and feels it so necessary to avoid disclosing earmarks to the very people paying the bill? Without transparency, there can be no accountability and any claim otherwise is sadly false.

Voting to table, or kill, an amendment to strengthen earmark provisions in the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 was an injury to Missouri's working families.

Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) were among those who put Washington pressure behind the interests of their constituents and voted to support real change in Washington. Missouri's voices in Washington should lead the way.

This is not the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Failing to take care of Missouri workers and taxpayers should not be a partisan issue, played over and over like an old stage play with different actors. The U.S. Senate did not elect itself.

VERN DAVIDSON Jr., Scott City