Full disclosure: I work for a nonprofit organization thathas a $285,000 earmark included in the $410 billion appropriations bill that isheaded for a potential showdown in Washington, D.C.this week. This particular earmark represents approximately 3% of an$8.1 million project to construct a new building in the Phillips neighborhoodof Minneapolis which would allow Open Arms of Minnesota to annually prepare anddeliver over 500,000 nutritious meals to people living with potentiallylife-threatening diseases like HIV/AIDS, cancer, MS and ALS. Our project willhelp revitalize a part of the Phillips neighborhood that is confronting manyurban challenges. And, it's shovel-ready. We are poised to begin construction thisspring and thereby employ workers for much of the remainder of 2009. Listen to political pundits and talking heads, however, andyou get the impression that every earmark is a bloated and wasteful pet projectof an elected official who is simply trying to garner favor with a select groupof constituents. I have a different take on earmarks. Who should have a better understanding of the needs or ourcommunities than the individuals we elect to represent us in Washington, D.C.? Part of the job of our electedofficials is to listen to constituents and to address the legitimate needs oftheir districts and their state. Yes, these earmarks sometimes end up fundingprojects that don't seem to make any sense to those of us who don't live in districts that receive earmarks; but they also provide equipment for hospitals, funding forschools, police stations, and community centers, as well as services forseniors, the disabled and the ill. Do these earmarks represent wasteful spending? Well, I guessit depends on whether or not we as individuals benefit from them. Does a$238,000 earmark designated for a sea voyaging program for young people in Hawaiirepresent pork-barrel spending? It might to me, but it probably doesn't for theHawaiian families that will benefit from it. Is the $190,000 earmark for the Buffalo Bill Historical Centerin Wyoming another example ofpork-barrel spending? I'm a history buff and have been to the Center before soI can imagine how this could be an investment for all of us. Would peoplein Hawaii and Wyomingconsider Open Arms' earmark as beneficial to them? More than likely they wouldnot. But that's one of the great things about our democracy. Sometimes weforgo personal interests for the greater common good.