Congressional Democrats have dug themselves into a public relations hole on the subject of "earmarks," the catch-all term for dubious projects that are often quietly tucked into spending legislation.

The use of earmarks has exploded under Republican rule in Washington, presenting a fat target for Democratic candidates in the fall campaign.

Earmarks were linked to the lax ethical climate in Washington, and in the heat of battle many Democrats forgot to mention that earmarking has a long, bipartisan history.

Now voters expect far more dramatic change in this area than the Demo-crats are likely to deliver. The backpedaling has begun.

A recent New York Times story noted that some incoming Democratic chairmen of congressional appropriations subcommittees may have limited enthusiasm for reforms that would essentially deprive them of the ability to bring home the bacon — and to help their political allies bring some home as well.

"I don't see any monumental changes," says Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, the Democrat who will take over the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee.

He says he will look charitably on a spending project if advocates "can explain it and justify it." The reality: Earmarking is all about evading an orderly approval process.

Many earmarks are placed in larger spending bills, often at the last minute — a practice known as "airdropping" — to avoid serious scrutiny. Even if voters learn about the earmark, they may be left in the dark as to who requested it.

Democratic leaders have promised to at least reduce the anonymity problem, but they should aim higher. After a dozen years of dramatic growth, earmarks must be sharply cut back.

Democrats should devote themselves to ensuring that spending proposals are more carefully scrutinized — and that wasteful projects like the now-legendary "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska are chopped out of the budget.