Members of the House Appropriations Committee appear to be balking at the prospect of change in House rules that would attach the names of lawmakers to the earmarks they've inserted into spending bills. As the Times article notes, this rather modest change would apply only to the House (not the Senate), and would exempt defense earmarks (where the real money is) from scrutiny. I've noted before that there are ways around the disclosure provisions proposed in the rules change, which potentially could make it harder to identify who's getting earmarks, because lawmakers could use obscure descriptions--any company incorporated in Harrison, N.Y., in 1923--to avoid the rule's requirement that they take credit for their earmarks. Still, with all it's limitations, this measure would shine a little light on spending bills already drafted but not yet passed--even a modest disclosure measure is better than none.