Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand (D-Hudson) has announced she's voluntarily trimming the number of local projects for which she's requesting federal funding. Congressman John McHugh is going a step further and calling for establishment of an impartial commission to make sure all requests are justified.

Local projects paid for with federal tax dollars are a tradition. Though they've come under intense scrutiny and vigorous criticism lately, they are rooted in utilitarianism. The thinking has always been that the representative of a district knows best which projects are worthy of funding. The alternative would be to have a Washington bureaucrat make all those decisions.

The trouble with the practice is that it has evolved into a system that rewards politics as much as need, in many cases. It has also given a strong advantage to an incumbent hoping to be re-elected by affording a platform from which to strew favors on the district. While most citizens would agree that the system of affording incumbents the opportunity to take credit for money brought home -- the bacon, or pork -- there is a natural tendency to rate a state or federal representative based on the number of projects funded.

Gillbrand's announcement that she intends to reduce her requests for funded projects -- called earmarks in the Washington vernacular -- didn't mention the amount of money involved. Fewer projects doesn't necessarily translate into less money spent.

McHugh is among the Republicans pushing for legislation to establish a panel to suggest changes in how earmarks are requested and awarded. A commission would be established to be sure there are no abuses. It would make sure the request was included in a bill passed by the House, as specified in the Constitution, rather than just showing up in another piece of legislation and that the money was appropriated according to law.

In the meantime, a moratorium on all earmarks would be imposed. If that didn't speed the legislation along, it's hard to imagine what would. No legislator is going to drag his or her feet while money for local projects is held in abeyance.

According to McHugh, the Democrats have resisted this legislation so far, and, of course, they are the majority party in the House of Representatives.

Earmarks, popular in the home communities scheduled to receive them but a costly political boondoggle everywhere else, have allowed members of Congress to exploit their incumbency and pave the way for re-elections virtually as long as desired.

It is actually a brave initiative to actively work to limit them by members who stand to benefit from them.

We appreciate Gillibrand expressing the view that earmarks have become a liability for America. We appreciate more McHugh's efforts to do something about them.