Over the past dozen years, members of Congress have engaged in an orgy of earmarking. They have abused their power to slip provisions known as earmarks into legislation, steering billions of taxpayer dollars to their favorite projects and special interests — often anonymously and at the behest of lobbyists.

Yet when asked recently about earmark reform by the New York Times, the incoming chairman of the Senate panel that will control $400 billion a year in defense spending, Hawaii Democrat Daniel Inouye, said, "I don't see any monumental changes."

Wrong answer. Voters didn't have business as usual in mind when they booted Republicans out of power in both the House and Senate. The new Congress owes voters a comprehensive and meaningful package of ethics and lobbying reform, including changes in the budget process to curb abuses.

The number and cost of earmarks rose from 4,126 worth $29.6 billion in 1994 to 15,877 worth $47.4 billion in 2006, according to the Congressional Research Service. Infamous examples in recent years have included $454 million for two "bridges to nowhere" in remote Alaska. Earmarks were behind the scandals that led to the convictions in the past year of two House members and super lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will ask Democrats to adopt new rules that would require sponsors to put their names on earmarks and disclose any financial interest in them, and would prohibit the use of earmarks to win votes. She also has supported legislation that would delay votes on spending bills to give members more time to scrutinize earmarks. These are good steps, but they don't go far enough.

Any serious reform proposal needs to reflect the reality that earmarks are not limited to spending bills, but can be slipped into other measures. And such a proposal needs a definition that encompasses not only goodies delivered through spending, but also tax breaks benefiting a small group of politically favored recipients.

Another essential element of reform is making it easier for members to challenge and remove earmarks from measures at all stages of the legislative process. Earmarks often don't show up until final versions of legislation, which can't easily be amended under current rules. Ideally, members would make all their requests for spending and tax breaks soon enough so that committees could evaluate them publicly in hearings.

Earmark reform doesn't mean taking away power from members of Congress to make decisions on specific spending instructions or tax breaks. Those decisions often serve a worthy public purpose.

Instead, reform means making sure Congress does its budgeting in the light of day. That would encourage more responsible choices, and discourage corruption.