When the Republican House Caucus swore off earmarks recently, I noted that this didn’t necessarily mean all the Republicans behind such a move were taking a principled stance. Some probably are serious, but others are just capitalizing on the political environment.

And still others, like Senator Inhofe, have gone in the complete opposite direction:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R.-Okla.), named by the National Journal as the senator with the most conservative voting record in 2009 and rated by the National Taxpayers Union as having the Senate’s fifth-best voting record on bills affecting taxing and spending, told CNSNews.com that he intends to lead a new effort to protect and defend the right of members of Congress to “earmark” appropriations and authorization bills.

Interesting. Let’s see what his argument is…

Inhofe said it is important to preserve earmarking not only to protect the constitutional prerogative of Congress to control where and how the federal government spends the taxpayers’ money, but also that it is particularly important for Congress to protect its authority in this area against encroachment by the Obama administration.

If Congress bans earmarks and thus restricts its own authority to direct federal programs, Inhofe said, “we would be delegating that back from Congress to President Obama to make those decisions. And I look at him, I look at his social engineering, I see the destructive forces in his administration that are tearing down every institution that has made America great, and I don’t want to put all this power in his hands.”

I find this argument wholly unconvincing. Earmarks are not the sole means by which Congress allocates funds. Senator Inhofe is confusing process for outcomes. Refusing to use the corrupt and unaccountable earmark process to disperse funds does not amount to a delegation of authority for spending from the legislative to the executive. It simply means that individual members of Congress cannot sneak in special carve-outs for district interests as a needle in the massive haystack that is typical Washington legislation.  They will have to actually make the case for their spending, and Congress will have to use a more transparent approach to funding.

I think Senator Inhofe will find that, in the end, a less corrupt process will provide Congress with more authority, as it will help restore public faith in what is now one of, if not the single, most unpopular institution in America.