I read the article, "Hastings' Pasco earmark questioned," which was published in the Feb. 7 Herald. Here is the substance of that article:

-- The 74-year-old underpass was deteriorated, had to be closed for repairs and was so dangerous that school buses could not use it.

-- The project had the support of the local community, regional governments and the Washington Department of Transportation.

-- U.S. Doc Hastings and his wife certified that they had no financial interest in the earmark.

-- The project has proximity to a business in which Congressman Hastings has no financial interest.

The article is written by Rob Hotakainen with the McClatchy Washington Bureau and would seem to conclude that if a project is based on the safety of the public, within proximity to a business, which is not owned by the Congressman, is supported by the local community, regional governments and the Washington Department of Transportation it is then a questionable earmark.

Nowhere in the article does it say who is questioning this earmark, except perhaps the author, who lives where?

This is very poor journalism, which lacks any objectivity, and by its very writings refutes the author's intent. If there is any question here, it is the objectivity and reasonability of Mr. Hotakainen.

Bryan Pepin-Donat, Richland

Editor's note: Rob Hotakainen's article gave Herald readers additional, local perspective on an issue that hit the national stage when The Washington Post reported that U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings and 32 other members of Congress directed more than $300 million to public projects near the lawmakers' own property. In our view, Hotakainen's piece provided readers -- who may have heard snippets about The Washington Post report -- with all the information needed to make their own judgments. Read it online attinyurl.com/TCH-Overpass.