THE SOUTH CAROLINA peaches have ripened and the tomatoes are coming along, but there's another, less welcome season under way: Bacon season, the seemingly endless parade of pork-barrel spending in Washington.

As Congress moves budget legislation through the labyrinth of committees and subcommittees, legislators are carving off slices for themselves and their home states. And they're bragging about it.

Press releases come flying out to announce the latest round, noting which new items in which locales will be built with federal dollars.

No town is too small: Jefferson, S.C., come on down! The federal government has money for your fire protection. Pelion Corporate Airport, you're next for a federally funded upgrade.

Our members of Congress, like those of every state, are eager for you to know about these new spending plans. They and their staffs, of course, don't think you are concerned about the Pelion Corporate Airport in particular. They just want you to see your elected official as someone who cares about the state -- and who brings home the goodies.

None of these breathless announcements of federal largess, however, points out an inconvenient fact: The federal government is spending and tax-cutting its way into a deep deficit. Fast.

This week's estimate of how deep is $500 billion in this fiscal year. The trend to spend continues next year at the same pace, and cost estimates for such things as the occupation of Iraq haven't even been added in yet.

This debt is inexcusable; it will be a burden on our children. If you ask legislators about it -- the same ones touting their prowess at bringing home federal dollars -- they are likely to deplore it. And our budgetary system lets them vote for these contradictory positions, even encourages them to do so.

When the government writes a budget, first a bill is passed that defines how much will be spent in certain areas: this much for new highways, that much for parks. But this authorization to spend doesn't spell out which highways or parks; it just sets a cost limit.

Later, bills spelling out where those dollars will be spent move through Congress. Legislators lobby and horse-trade to win projects for their home state.

It's a strange way to allocate resources. Did we set aside enough for homeland security, or should we move money from transportation to security? Our system makes it very hard do that, at least in the same budget. It makes it hard to even to ask that question, since the budget for transportation is in this committee, and the budgets for homeland defense are scattered in different committees across the Capitol.

Critics of the bridge Rep. Jim Clyburn wants to build across Lake Marion frequently assert that the money would be better spent on other federal functions. (Which function depends on the viewpoint of the critic, of course.) Rep. Clyburn, who sits on the key House Appropriations Committee, points out that the budget already specifies how much will be spent on new highway construction. Either I can bring that money home to South Carolina, the congressman says, or someone from, say, California will send it home to his state.

This system was a favored target of Mark Sanford during his six years in Congress. He was determined not to be two-faced about spending -- he would not vote for any appropriation that threw the budget further out of balance, no matter how it benefited South Carolina. In Washington, that's a lot more eccentric than sleeping in the office.

As governor, he is holding his budget hearings to get a chance to do what he couldn't in Washington: Ask what specific functions government really should do, then move resources to only those projects.

Are the projects that our congressmen are bragging about unworthy of government dollars? Should Pelion, Jefferson and the many other towns not get what Congress has allocated?

I'm not in a position to say that. I hope and expect those members of Congress who spoke up for the projects are in a position to justify spending those taxpayer dollars.

It would be a breakthrough for budget candor, however, if future announcements of federal spending had to contain a caveat at the bottom, something like:

"Note: The federal government is running an increasing deficit, one that is mounting into the trillions. This project will be paid for, with interest, by your children and grandchildren."

Not a real vote-getter? Perhaps. But maybe a more straightforward way for members of Congress to do their jobs.