But HOW can that BE?!?!

The Democratic majority in Congress PROMISED they'd do away with Spending Earmarks when they ran on the issue in the 2006 election.
It became "The Abramoff Plank" in the '06 Dem party platform.

They won a majority of both houses running on issues like that one, and on Getting Us the Hell OUT of Iraq. They passed a 'Reform' Bill, and claimed they'd 'delivered' on their campaign promise.

Then, when push came to shove back in the old "smoke-filled rooms" we find that what they REALLY Meant was:

[ Senate majority leader Harry Reid told the Senate parliamentarian that the new law only applied to spending bills, not to authorization or tax bills. That means that members had no opportunity to challenge specific projects on the floor of the House or Senate.

"Now, senators know that they can add projects with impunity to the authorization bill and no one can object. That's business as usual," says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste.
...
In a Sept. 20 letter..., Sens. Reid and Feinstein wrote that there are "sound policy reasons" for treating authorization and spending bills differently. "Stronger safeguards are appropriate when Congress actually spends taxpayer money," they wrote. "But when Congress passes an authorizing bill, it is simply expressing a goal."

But critics note that the most infamous earmark of all, the $223 million "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, was attached to an AUTHORIZING Bill.., NOT a Spending Bill!
...
One of the key venues for abuse, critics say, is "air-dropping" projects in conference. In other words, measures are added AFTER a bill has passed BOTH the House and Senate but before it goes back to both bodies for a final vote. That backroom tactic is what ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff called "The Favor Factory." It's where former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R) of California, now serving an eight-year sentence after pleading guilty to corruption charges, linked earmarks to bribes without scrutiny. {..and the Democratic LeaderSheep has chosen to Leave It In Place!}
...
"These deals are being made Behind Closed Doors and Stuck in Conference, and that's just not right," says Adrianne Marsh, spokeswoman for Sen. Claire McCaskill(D-Mo) who has voted with some Republicans seeking stronger disclosure requirements for earmarks. "If a public project isn't worthy of public scrutiny it's not worthy of being funded." ]
Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1005/p01s01-uspo.html

Is it any wonder that many third party supporters tend to refer to the people who have been running our government as DemoPublicans and/or RepubliCrats?
Why so many disaffected voters from both parties have come to the conclusion that: "There Ain't a Dime's Worth of Difference", and either drop out of participation all together, or go with the mavericks in the parties or with the Greens or Libertarians?