Reid defends earmarks

In Washington on Tuesday afternoon, Sen. Harry Reid told reporters little as to how he plans to move forward in the post-election lame duck session, saying he is still taking the temperature of Democrats as to what might be possible.

But on one issue the Senate majority leader from Nevada remained clear. He repeated his long held view that there is nothing wrong with earmarked spending -- in fact, allowing lawmakers to designate federal money being spent in their state is superior to allowing the executive branch of government to make those decisions.

"I believe personally we have a constitutional responsibility to do congressionally directed spending," Reid said. "I am not in favor of delegating my personal responsibility to the White House."

Reid's comments came as Senate Republicans were meeting to form an internal policy that they will not seek earmarks, which critics equate with wasteful spending and as a symbol of what is wrong with Congress.

Beyond that, Republicans and several Democrats including Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri say they will seek a Senate vote to outlaw earmarks. Reid said he would agree to set up a debate on the topic, but did not specify when that might be.

In the meantime, Reid rejected the idea that doing away with earmarks amounts to meaningful budget reform. 

In the absence of earmarks, he said for example, powerful universities in the East and on the West Coast would grab the lion's share of federal spending for programs and research, far outstripping universities elsewhere -- like in Nevada.

"I don't accept that," he said. "I think I have an obligation to the people of Nevada to do what is important for Nevada, not what is important to some bureaucrats with green eyeshades."