WASHINGTON – A couple of months after Officer Michael Briggs was killed in October 2006, the police department in Manchester, N.H., informed the city that the federal program that finances police officers assigned to target street crime and reduce open-air drug sales had not been funded for the next fiscal year.

New Hampshire’s senior senator swung into action on behalf of Operation Streetsweeper: Republican Judd Gregg obtained a congressional earmark for $846,000 to support state and local law enforcement priorities in New Hampshire. Previous federal funding of Operation Streetsweeper was cited as one reason violent crime in Manchester dropped 17 percent from the first half of 2006 to the first half of 2007. Thanks to the new funding, the 11-year-old program continues.

Although the House and Senate have both defeated a moratorium on earmarks, the debate about direct congressional grants rages on. Generally absent is any mention of the pressing needs that these grants have helped so many of our nation’s communities meet.

Are programs to reduce gang violence a good use of taxpayer funds? How about keeping sewage out of local streams? Or fixing unsafe roads and bridges before another tragedy?

By any reasonable standard, nearly all congressionally directed grants would be considered a good use of taxpayer funds.

Local officials nationwide have a common goal: providing residents with public services in the most cost-effective way. Local governments’ primary source of funds is taxes.

In addition to local taxes, Americans send more than $1 trillion in federal taxes each year to Washington to fund projects that localities cannot undertake alone: building highways, providing for defense and so on. Some federal programs are designed to return a portion of that tax revenue to local governments to help them serve their residents.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, for fiscal 2008, members of Congress secured more than $10 billion for non-defense projects in their districts.

Most of that money will be spent on infrastructure improvements, economic development initiatives, public safety enhancements and environmental cleanups – projects that serve a public good and will benefit the citizens, whom lawmakers were elected to serve.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, such congressional grants do not increase federal spending but only help guide how this funding is directed. For fiscal 2008, Congress held to the total discretionary spending caps that President Bush demanded. So congressional grants did not add one dollar to federal spending or to the deficit.

Earmarking has become a controversial issue, but it is really about what mechanism we use to return federal tax dollars – money raised from people in cities and towns all over the country – to communities to benefit those who paid the taxes.

As mayors, we are keenly aware that our three cities have directly benefited from congressional earmarks – whether they protect low-income children from the hazards of lead paint or revitalize urban waterways – as have most towns and cities in the country.

In fact, the line items that lawmakers have placed in every federal budget since the first Congress are a more democratic method of spending our tax dollars than leaving all the decisions to unelected officials of the executive branch, who too often have turned a blind eye to local needs.

For fiscal 2007, Congress placed a moratorium on grants – part of what threatened Operation Streetsweeper in Manchester – and spending decisions were left solely to the Bush administration. What happened? The administration picked a select group of winners that got all the money – and hundreds of smaller and less well-connected communities were left out in the cold.

In 2007, the administration awarded just seven grants for public bus transit, and half of the funding went to one city: New York. For fiscal 2008, when Congress awarded money for public transit through a reformed, open and transparent process, more than 300 agencies received grants.

Similarly, last year the administration gave only 37 police departments all of the funding for new law enforcement technology; this year, Congress awarded 560 law enforcement technology grants to communities in 42 states.

When Congress picks projects to receive federal funds, the selection process is more open, and spending is more fairly distributed. Most communities do not have the clout to play the bureaucratic game, and they need their members of Congress to fight to bring resources back home.

The truth is that congressional grants fund public projects that benefit us all. They are fairer and more democratic than the spending decisions of faceless administration staffers. They are also a badly needed investment in the future of our communities.