Chalk up another landmark achievement for congressional Democrats — last week they passed an ethics and lobbying "reform" bill. Or so we're told.

"What we did today was momentous. It's historic," declared Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) after the vote of 411 to 8.

The Washington Post called it "a landmark bill."

When the U.S. Senate passed the bill, sending it to the president, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) dubbed it the "most sweeping ethics and lobbying reform in history," saying it would produce "a government as good and honest as the people it represents."

Is he serious? Can this new law make a rotten Congress "good"? Or honest? Does any sane person really believe that?

Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sure doesn't. As the Senate's biggest supporter of transparency regarding earmarks and the strongest opponent of such pork in the first place, he has standing.

"This bill is a landmark betrayal, not a landmark accomplishment," Coburn declared after its passage. "Congress had a historic opportunity to expose secretive pork-barrel spending but instead created new ways to hide that spending."

Coburn points out a number of ways the original legislation was gutted:

• The bill was changed to make earmark disclosure voluntary rather than mandatory.
• The requirement of 67 Senate votes to suspend the earmark disclosure rule was changed to 40 votes — less than a majority.
• The language prohibiting a member or staff from promoting earmarks they would personally benefit from was completely eviscerated.
• So was the language prohibiting a member from trading votes for earmarks.
• The requirement that earmarks be put on the Internet 48 hours after their inclusion in legislation was changed to "as soon as practical."
• The non-partisan Senate parliamentarian was replaced by the majority leader as the referee determining whether earmark disclosure requirements are met.
• The bill also weakened other elements of disclosure and transparency.

As the Washington Examiner editorialized, "There are a few positive provisions in the bill, but the bottom line is that it is stuffed with cosmetic changes that fail to address the core issues of congressional corruption spawned by earmarks."

Who could be surprised? It's a familiar paradox: Once again "reform" passes in Washington with those most reform-minded expressing unhappiness while those least so minded demonstrating paroxysms of ecstatic joy. Golly, I wonder why?

It comes down to one's perspective. If you're a career politician, you see earmarks as a way to turn a portion of the federal budget into a favor-producing, fundraising little enterprise. Had Dale Carnegie been unethical, he'd no doubt have suggested earmarks as a great way to "win friends and influence people." Continued...