Trying to explain earmarks to Republican diplomats must be like Oscar Nunez from “The Office” giving financial advice to Michael Scott: “Your mommy and daddy give you $10 to open up a lemonade stand. So you go out and you buy cups and you buy lemons and you buy sugar. And now you find out that it only costs you $9.”The question is: What should you do with the extra dollar? If you’re a good little kid, you’d give that dollar back.But let’s assume your mommy and daddy are abusive spend thrifts who would use that dollar to buy crack from your crazy Uncle Sam.The answer should become much clearer now — find a way to spend that dollar.President Barack Obama signed the Omnibus spending bill into law March 11. Congressional Republicans, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have criticized Obama for reneging on his campaign promises by signing the omnibus bill, which contains nearly 9,000 earmarks.Yet the overall total of earmarks under scrutiny makes up less than 2 percent of the legislation’s aggregate cost. To rebuke this alleged pork barrel spending, representatives need to have a rational understanding of what earmarks are.An earmark can loosely be defined as a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Congressional leadership and appropriators determine the total level of congressional spending before any member has a chance to propose any alterations or amendments. These requests are merely suggestions to apportion parts of that spending for certain items in their district or state.When a request makes it into the budget, it deducts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and various bureaucrats and targets it for projects the people and their representatives request.If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district, the money doesn’t magically disappear or go toward paying down the national debt.  It’s simply spent elsewhere.To eliminate all earmarks would further consolidate power in the overly powerful executive branch without saving the taxpayer a dime.Further, designating how taxpayer money is distributed provides a level of transparency and accountability over federal dollars that is currently lacking.If earmarks were indeed the impetus behind government spending, then all the hoopla would be completely warranted.But that isn’t the case. Addressing Congress from the house floor, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, spoke out against its distorted view of earmarks. Paul urged Congress to deflect focus away from earmarks and toward the real crisis of unsustainable federal spending.Instead, Paul argued that Congress should assign all federal spending so there’s at least a tinge of oversight in the process. This also allows for resources to be sanctioned more effectively so taxpayers can — at least to some extent — benefit from their investments.It’s obvious many of the earmarks in the omnibus spending bill were unwarranted. And most certainly any frivolous spending is detrimental. Earmark privileges certainly shouldn’t be abused to help elected officials gain political clout nor should they put a strain on our collective piggy banks. Elected officials shouldn’t chastise targeted spending simply for the chance to grandstand on topics they don’t fully understand.If Republicans want to facilitate change, they need to direct their outcry toward the real problem. The financial landscape of our political system is bursting into flames. But Republicans can’t see the fiery forest if they’re too focused on the trees.Scott Burns is a 19-year-old political science and business sophomore from Baton Rouge.–Contact Scott Burns at [email protected]