Let’s see: There are landmarks, birthmarks, trademarks, hoof marks, quote marks, skid marks, proof marks, reference marks, Gospel of Mark, Marky Mark and earmarks, a marked word.

Earmarks have an image problem. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has a brainstorm.

Get rid of earmarks.

In with Pelosi’s “legislatively directed spending.” It’s a new concept she’s pushing. A new frame.

Pelosi’s proposed glossary would have co-equal “executive spending requests” — made by the White House — and “legislatively directed spending” — requested by lawmakers.

Because of secrecy and abuses, earmarks have become sensational symbols of excessive congressional spending. The most controversial projects are slipped into bills at conference. Lawmakers then vote on the final bill without having a clue as to what they just approved, because the earmarks were written in a secret language.

Democratic House leaders promised to do better. Bring transparency to the process. Turns out that Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.) wants to hold off for now and not disclose earmarks in the appropriations bills, just starting to flow in the pipeline. He needs time for his staff to scrutinize the 32,000-plus requests and drop the ones that pass his muster into conference reports.

That’s not the same as subjecting earmarks to a process where lawmakers actually have input in the form of votes — or by disclosing requests at the beginning of the legislative process, not the end. Why not, as Bill Allison over at the Sunlight Foundation suggests, “make the whole process transparent by making the requests publicly available the moment they’re sent to the committee”?

Naturally, the Republican leaders have pounced, charging the Democrats with being faux reformers.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is having a field day. He is mustering righteous outrage over a Democratic process that, flawed as it is, still will result in a list of projects, sponsors and an explanation of what the money is for. Never saw Boehner this worked up over earmark secrecy when the Republicans were in charge.

Obey was on the defensive during a press conference with the leaders on Tuesday. He pledged every project will eventually be disclosed with the name of the sponsor and “you will have a month to scrub that list, and if you see any item that you think we ought to be squawking about, you let us know, and we’ll be squawking.”

“If I just might,” Pelosi said, “direct the record to another place. Why don’t we just leave this room today forgetting the word ‘earmark’? This is legislatively directed spending, as opposed to executive spending.

“In the absence of legislative directed spending, you have appropriations bills that are totally dictated by the White House. And so for those who are critics of the word ‘earmark,’ understand the difference. This is a way for communities of interest in the states across our country, members to come together, sometimes in a bipartisan way, to have the Congress of the United States determine some of what is in the appropriations bills instead of just leaving it up to the White House.”

Call it LDS if you must. But it’s the same product. Democrats are gift-wrapping an issue for Republicans by disclosing the pet projects later, not sooner.

Sweet is the Washington bureau chief for the Chicago Sun-Times. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it