The White House defines “earmarks” in a way that applies only to projects designated by Congress, not to those requested by the administration.

“Earmarks,” as defined by the White House, “are funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the Congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to properly manage funds.”

Sean M. Kevelighan, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, said: “The administration’s budget proposals are available for any taxpayer to see. We submit a justification for each item. That’s very different from what happens on Capitol Hill, where items are dropped into legislation at the last minute, for no rhyme or reason other than the seniority of a member of Congress.”

Democrats sometimes say the Bush administration has approved projects to help its political allies, but such assertions are hard to prove. In the 2004 campaign, administration officials raced around the country handing out money for federal programs, including some that Mr. Bush had tried to cut or eliminate.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, is winning support with a different tactic. Mr. McCain regularly receives cheers and applause when he declares, “I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it.”

It is virtually impossible to determine the dollar value of items requested by the president because they are scattered through voluminous budget documents prepared by dozens of federal offices and agencies, and the administration does not publish comprehensive lists, as Congress did last year for the first time.

Administration officials say that many projects in the president’s budget  though they may look like Congressional earmarks  were evaluated as part of a coherent program to address some national need, like pest eradication or flood control.