Pat Toomey writes in the Wall Street Journal:

Conducted in late June, the poll surveyed 800 voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46%. Likely voters were asked the following question: “All things being equal, for whom would you be more likely to vote for the U.S. Congress: 1) A candidate who wants to cut overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district or 2) A candidate who wants to increase overall spending on federal programs, as long as more federal spending and projects come to your district?”
The results were unambiguous. Fifty-four percent of general election voters chose the frugal candidate, compared with only 29% who chose the profligate candidate. Republicans overwhelming favor less federal spending, 72% to 17%, with independents close behind at 61%. Only Democrats prefer more federal spending, but only by a plurality. Thirty-six percent of Democrats chose the more fiscally conservative candidate, with 42% choosing the alternative.

Good news. But these findings don’t quite add up to a popular mandate to eliminate or even rein in earmarks. Most earmarks do not increase federal spending, at least directly; they allocate it. A poll question about whether your local congressman or a Washington bureaucrat should determine how various federal programs spend money would probably yield a different answer. So would a question that specified, say, “a new on-ramp to the highway” rather than abstracting the issue to “overall federal spending.” Republicans who think it is important to crack down on earmarks should by all means proceed. But they should not let themselves be misled about public opinion.