Back in the 16th Century, farmers made cuts or marks in the ears of sheep or cattle to show ownership. They had no idea that the practice -- called earmarking -- would become a political term five centuries later.

Today earmarking refers to provisions inserted by members of Congress in federal spending bills directing that money be spent on specific projects in the member's home district. These provisions are, in a sense, cut into the budget like the cuts in the ears of cattle; marked for all to see.

Unlike the 16th Century earmarks, until recently the names of the senators or representatives who inserted the earmarks were not made public. That was changed in an ethics bill last year, so today the names of those who insert earmarks are known.

Critics say earmarks are often wasteful and unwise because they bypass the internal budgeting process of each federal agency, which might prefer to spend money on more worthwhile projects. Supporters counter that elected officials are more qualified to direct spending in their states than are federal bureaucrats.

As is usually the case in this sort of argument in Washington, both sides are right -- and wrong. Often senators and representatives can pinpoint essential projects in their home states that federal officials might miss. But far too often, the projects they earmark represent more political value than necessary ways to use federal tax money.

Earmarks tend to be supported by those who have the power to use them. Democrats criticized earmarks when Republicans controlled Congress; now most of the criticism comes from President Bush and Republican senators and representatives. Sen. John McCain, the probable Republican candidate for president, has made his opposition to earmarks part of his campaign.

The champion earmarker is Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. When Republicans controlled the Senate, Stevens, as chair of the Appropriations Committee, loaded the federal budget with money for his state. That continues today, even thought Stevens is no longer committee chair. Stevens earmarked $345 million for Alaska in earmarks in the 2008 budget. That's $506 for every resident of the state.

The champion earmarker is Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. When Republicans controlled the Senate, Stevens, as chair of the Appropriations Committee, loaded the federal budget with money for his state. That continues today, even thought Stevens is no longer committee chair. Stevens earmarked $345 million for Alaska in earmarks in the 2008 budget. That's $506 for every resident of the state.

One Stevens' earmark has come to symbolize the worst of earmarking: The Bridge to Nowhere. That's a proposed $223 million bridge to an Alaskan island with 50 residents.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization which calls itself "an independent voice for American taxpayers," compiled a report that claims to review every earmark in the most recent federal budget.

The organization reported that members of Congress inserted 12,881 in earmarks worth $18.3 billion into this year's spending bills.

It shows that compared to Stevens, Maine's congressional delegation is frugal. If you don't like earmarks, you may applaud that. If you want Maine to get a bigger share of federal spending, you may not like the numbers.

Maine ranked 49th of the 50 states -- behind Wyoming -- in the amount of money earmarked for the state in the 2008 budget, with projects totaling about $39 million. California was first; earmarks will bring more than $928 million to that state.

Maine fares better -- or, depending on your view, worse -- on a per capita basis. Earmarks will bring $29 to Maine for every man, woman and child living here. That makes Maine 40th among the states -- far behind the $506 for every Alaskan. Arizona is 50th, with about $19 per resident.

Among the projects earmarked for Maine is $600,000 earmarked by Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for land acquisition for Acadia National Park; $492,000 earmarked by Rep. Tom Allen for Atlantic salmon restoration in the Penobscot River and $150,000 earmarked by Allen for a plan to build a center for homeless women in Portland and $500,000 earmarked by Rep. Mike Michaud for improvements to the Arnold Bridge in Willimantic.

Are these pork-barrel spending, examples of an out-of-control Congress? You decide.

Even if you think the Maine projects are worthwhile, what about the process? Would it have been better government policy to wait for federal agencies -- not our congressional delegation -- to decide whether to support these projects? Sure, we want to see the Arnold Bridge improved. But is it the worst bridge in Maine? The worst in the United States? Would federal highway or bridge officials have selected another bridge if the funds had not been earmarked for Maine?

Is the land acquisition for Acadia the best use of federal park money, or would those funds have been better spent elsewhere -- or saved?

A quick look at earmarks leaves lots of questions, especially for those who think taxes are too high. Consider $100,000 earmarked for planning and design for a museum in Nashville or $400,000 to recruit and train court reporters in Des Moines. Or a $30,000 program to combat childhood obesity in Barrington, Ill. Why Barrington and not Waterville?

For a complete listing of earmarks -- and some opinionated comments about them, see www.taxpayer.net/budget/fy08earmarks/report.html.