Progress in the making (although the question is, and here's to hoping it will, will it last): Spending Posts Now a Liability for Lawmakers

From The New York Times:

Membership on the Appropriations Committee used to be a first-class ticket to Congressional success, guaranteeing lucky lawmakers the ability to campaign on the federal money they had lavished on the folks back home. But the era of the appropriator appears to be on the wane.

In a treacherous political environment where cutting spending is the more potent message and earmarks can count as a black mark, serving on the House or Senate committee that doles out federal dollars can bring more punishment than prestige.

Of six Congressional incumbents defeated in preliminary contests so far this year, four were veteran members of the appropriations panel who found themselves on the defensive.

“You know the world is in a different place when bringing home the bacon is no longer a good thing,” said Jennifer Duffy, senior editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

It is a striking turn of events for members of a committee considered so elite that its subcommittee chairmen were known universally as Cardinals. A common saying on Capitol Hill was that there are actually three parties in Congress — Republicans, Democrats and Appropriators.

Lawmakers and others say the voter unease over earmarks and federal spending began showing itself in the 2006 and 2008 elections when veteran appropriators began being voted out and the now infamous Alaskan “bridge to nowhere” bloomed into a national symbol of earmarking excess.

Now, analysts say, the tradition of earmarking and serving on a committee that practically defines the term “insider” fits perfectly into one of the most powerful narratives working against incumbent lawmakers this election cycle.