I dont care where it comes from or who does it. Earmarks and riders ought to be banned.
The last person to propose moratorium on discretionary spending was Obama in 2011, and it was rejected. Ironically because Republicans argued that failure of congress to allocate funds to specific projects and entities means that it will pass on to the executive branch. And the president can determine how those funds are allocated and to whom. Which means the president can 'earmark' without it needing to be disclosed like it would be in congressional hearings. And then the president would be free to use that money to reward friends and punish enemies.
Republicans concluded that discretionary spending is a necessary function of congress to direct funds to the projects that need it, (and is more democratic than executive branch spending) it is insufficient to merely vaguely allocating... unless the president is Republican, then Republicans are okay with it.
It doesn't help that what an 'earmark' is, as opposed to just 'funding projects' is subjective. Ditto 'riders.' The education 'rider' to the stimulus bill isn't. It's specifically a covid relief stimulus bill that will keep the ability for at home kids to have school online access and have the budget to prepare for safety returning to classrooms.
A rider would be more like the military spending that was added on to the Net Neutrality act. Something completely unrelated to the bill and what it was addressing.