Earmarks return

Well, it was nice while it lasted. The Baker administration last week confirmed to the State House News Service that it has lifted a hold on earmark spending, which it had imposed in October when the commonwealth’s revenue picture was more uncertain.

Days later when December revenue figures came in more than half a billion dollars over projections and the six-month figure was $728 million over projections (nearly $1 billion over the same six months of fiscal 2017), it became obvious why the governor was suddenly feeling so generous.

Now, if we had our way Baker would have held up the earmarks until every lawmaker was required to stand on the front steps of the State House and justify every individual one — or until legislative leaders turned blue in the face, whichever came first.

But given that the state suddenly finds itself flush with cash, the governor doesn’t have much cause to sit on the funds indefinitely.

Lawmakers insist that the earmarks are necessary to fund truly essential services — usually citing domestic violence shelters and after-school programs and the like.

Rarely do they stand up and pound the desk demanding funds for the memorial gazebos and windmill restorations that they’ve also packed into the budget.

While Baker vetoed $320 million in earmarks for lawmakers’ pet priorities in the current budget, the House and Senate reversed $118 million worth of them. Now it appears there will be sufficient funds in the hopper to cover those expenses.

So call his “October freeze” a power move; it certainly got under House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s skin. But Baker is the one responsible for ensuring the state budget remains balanced — and over the last two fiscal years spending authorized by the Legislature has exceeded available revenue.

So if the delay in releasing earmarks caused a little heartburn for lawmakers who rely on them in promoting their re-election campaigns, well, that’s OK, too.