Vice President-elect Joe "Give em' Hell" Biden says that the economic stimulus plan the new administration will put into law shortly after taking office won't include no stinkin' earmarks. The Wall Street Journal quotes (subscription required) Biden as saying that "There will be no earmarks in this economic recovery plan. I know it's the Christmas season, but President-elect Obama and I are absolutely determined that this economic recovery package will not become a Christmas tree."

I'll believe it when I see it. The $700 billion TARP bill was rejected by Congress once, only to be passed once it was brought to a new vote stuffed with pork: provisions tax savings for a manufacturer of "certain wooden arrows designed for use by children" and a convoluted change to tax policy on rum.

Obama and company have indicated that there is a rush to get a new stimulus plan passed and self-serving Congressmen and women will take advantage of that by larding the bill up with earmarks and then defying their colleagues and the President to prevent it from being made law. It won't happen.

I will be shocked -- shocked -- if the next stimulus plan makes it through with no earmarks.

Much has been written about the add-ons or 'pork' in the rescue package passed by the U.S. Congress and signed President Bush.

The add-ons, which increased the bill's projected cost by $130-$165 billion, depending on the analysis, have been viewed as another example of "special interest lobbying," "sneaky ways to get pet projects passed," "ripping off the taxpayer" and/or as simply un-American.

Well, the truth is, add-ons in the United States have taken place in every Congress since the nation was founded. Further, no one really knows who made the first legislative "deal," but to say that senators in ancient Rome or officials in Greece, did not trade votes for projects or patronage would be a stretch.

"Democracy is the worst system ...

Of course, it's much more ethical -- some would call it virtuous -- to propose a bill, then get a large majority to render a decision on the program/policy/law solely on its merits, driven by whether the bill is in the nation's interest.

And likewise, add-ons/pork can increase federal spending by substantial amounts, which makes it harder for the federal government -- or any government, for that matter -- to live within its means.