Republicans are suddenly up-in-arms, opposing Congressional earmarks. The latest budget includes 8,570 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion. John McCain is nearly apoplectic, blasting Obama for not insisting that earmarks should be abolished.
Let's look at the history of earmarks. In 2008, there were 11,524 earmarks totaling $16,501,833,000. Even though the Congress had a Democratic majority last year, 40% of those earmarks were requested by Republicans.
When Republicans took over Congress in 1994, there were 4,000 earmarks on appropriations bills. At the end of the 109th Congress in 2005, there were 15,000. [Washington Post, 1/25/06; The Gavel, 1/28/08]
But now that Democrats are back in power, earmarks seem to have taken on a whole new, unfavorable light. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Republicans were wildly enthusiastic about running huge deficits for the past eight years under Bush, fueled by tax cuts for the rich and carefully-concealed off-the-budget spending for the insane war in Iraq. But now that Obama is trying to rescue the economy with deficit spending, Republicans have suddenly become paragons of fiscal conservatism.
Do I detect a tinge of hypocrisy here?
Still, I have to laugh at the duplicity of Senators Boehnr, McCain and others when they scream about earmarks which account for about 2% of the current budget. Where were they four or five years ago when the K Street cronies of Republican Senators were lining up for handouts...and getting them?
Even Bush got into the earmark game. In 2007, Bush stuffed approximately 580 earmarks worth $15.6 billion into his appropriation request for military construction and veterans affairs. Bush's earmarks included $24 million for the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program and "$8.9 million for the Points of Light foundation, a pet project started by his father, former President George H.W. Bush." [Washington Examiner, 11/15/07]
Earmarks grew like mad under Bush. According to the Congressional Research Service, there were 997 earmarks in the Fiscal 2000 defense appropriation bill. By the Fiscal 2005 law that Bush signed into law, there were 2506 earmarks, "more than two and half times the number contained the Fiscal 2000 bill." In the bill funding the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, the number of earmarks grew from 291 in 2000 to 3,014 in 2005.
The Democrats cut earmarks in half when they took control of Congress in 2007. [New York Times, 11/4/07]
But that isn't enough for the newly-minted budget hawks of the Republican party. It's okay for Republicans to hand out pork to their cronies, but when Democrats do the same, it's time to display a little self-righteous wrath.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 23
Excellent analysis. One thing which needs to be done in this debate over "earmarks', is to decide just what defines as an earmark. This is not a cut and dried designation of money. Is any funds budgeted and that are dedicated to a particular project considered an earmark? And if that is the case, how would we have zero based budgeting without them? Or does the earmark have to be requested by a specific senator that stands to gain in some manner from it's passage? If that is the designation, it would be much easier to eliminate but not necessarily practical, still.
I'm of the opinion that the bad mouthing of earmarks is badly overdone regardless of which party is condemning or benefiting from earmarks. Earmarks, while easy targets for those who wish to condemn the budget process, especially when their party is to the one in power, are still a necessary part of putting together a responsible budget! the earmark process clearly identifies just who is asking for those funds to be so dedicated and to hold them accountable for the wise use of the funds.
REMEMBER THESE NAMES..? CALIFORNIA SENATORS WHO SOLD YOU OUT TO ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Sen.Harry Reid (D-NV) arch enemy of American workers, committed the ultimate sin today Reid and 49 Democrats blocked E-Verify in the Senate. Their disloyal actions shall be well remembered, when the grovel for re-election. They condemned hundreds of thousands in the construction industry, having to compete over jobs. Parasites are organisms that live of a host and that is what contractors will do, when they look for the cheapest labor they can find. Starting with the stimulus, then followed by the Omnibus spending plan this Senators blocked E-Verify.
Akaka (D-HI) Inouye (D-HI),Begich (D-AK),Bennet (D-CO) Udall (D-CO),Bingaman (D-NM) Udall(D-NM),Boxer (D-CA) Feinstein (D-CA),Brown (D-OH),Burris (D-IL) Durbin (D-IL),Byrd (D-WV) Rockefeller (D-WV),Cantwell (D-WA) Murray,(D-WA),Cardin (D-MD) Mikulski (D-MD),Carper (D-DE) Kaufman (D-DE),Casey (D-PA),Conrad (D-ND) Dorgan (D-ND),Dodd (D-CT) Lieberman.
Here's more Senators who killed E-Verify Here's more (ID-CT),Feingold (D-WI) Kohl (D-WI),Gillibrand (D-NY) Schumer (D-NY),Hagan (D-NC),Harkin (D-IA),Johnson (D-SD),Kerry (D-MA),Landrieu (D-LA),Shaheen (D-NH),Leahy (D-VT) Sanders (I-VT),Levin (D-MI) Stabenow (D-MI),Lincoln (D-AR) Pryor (D-AR),Menendez (D-NJ) Lautenberg (D-NJ),Merkley (D-OR) Wyden (D-OR),Nelson (D-FL),Reed (D-RI) Whitehouse (D-RI),Reid (D-NV) and Warner (D-VA).
They sold the American Worker out for campaign money from corporate lobbyists and open border fanatics. In this miserable time of unemployment and uncertainty from the janitor, to the computer programmer you will be REMEMBERED. You will not escape your insult to the American worker, who depends on your honesty to vote on their behalf. You have now proved the dimensions of how far you will go, to keep the illegal alien invasion crossing our borders, overstaying their ship or plane visa.
The corruption so deeply instilled in the Washington elite. ASK JUDICIALWATCH? The billions of tax dollars taken from every, man, woman and child, to support the welfare of illegal aliens. Like Pearl harbor we will not forget the traitors who swore to uphold their allegiance to THE PEOPLE.
Earmarks aren't a democrat or republican thing, they are something that career politicians do to suck up to their constituency so they can get re-elected. Right now it happens that the democrats are an overwhelming majority, and of course most of them just *love* throwing money around on the cause of the day. Sure, there are republicans doing dumb things too, but for the most part they have no power.
You know what the REAL problem is, regardless of party? Power hungry politicians. Whenever a party is in the majority for so long they get greedy and egotistical, they feel like people will keep voting for them time after time. Well, as we have seen in 06 and 08... that power hungry attitude only comes back to slap you in the face. I do believe that 2010 will start to show democrats losing some of their power, because people will start to really see what I see. More Power = More Corruption.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no republican, I'm actually a democrat turned independent, and I have a lot of Libertarian ideas... so I'm not defending either side, I'm just saying that the wind will blow the other way again, and I will be the first to laugh out loud when people are making fun of the democrats again. Come on people, can you not remember 00-05? Some people have 2 second attention spans, I realize that, but I'm just afraid we are just gonna keep repeating failed history forever.
I do agree that earmarks should be assessed before being included, though. I fully support full disclosure of who, what, when and where. As with any system, it has been abused in the past with reps rewarding companies and individuals for campaign contributions through specifically earmarking their pet projects, rather than the funds being given to a state with an open bid process on the projects. There have been too many times when a road was put in just because the access it afforded benefitted a campaign donor's business interests.
These are the types of things that need to be assessed, not earmarking as a whole. That is simply disingenuous. McCain has done his fair share of earmarking for his constituents in AZ. He's a liar if he doesn't admit to that. And there is nothing wrong with it, as long as it is not payback and makes sense for the state as a whole.
Illinois is one of the states that sends more money to the federal government than it gets.
I don't mind helping out, but the taxpayers of Illinois have thing that need federal funding too.
But isn't an earmark really just local control and states' rights, things that the GOP claims to be sacrosanct?
Transparency and accountabliliy are the real issues. We need to make sure that earmarks are not used to fuel even more corruption in our government.
What I don't like about them is that they are just sneaked into the bills and never debated. I can understand why the House or Senate cannot go through and debate every single one of them...they could spend years at that! But it seems like something that should be done in committee before the bill comes to the floor.
More transparency would make citizens more aware and may make politicians act more honestly.
Republicans are more willing to play hardball than Democrats. Example: The Nuclear Option during Bush's first term. Republicans used the threat of changing House rules to eliminate the filibuster to intimidate Democrats into confirming Right Wing extremists to the Supreme Court. It worked.
But in Bush's second term, Republicans used the threat of filibusters to stop countless bills, and the Dems never even considered retaliating with their own Nuclear Option. It's an example of the ruthless way they play the game. Sad to say, the Dems aren't nearly as good at that kind of stuff
I read an interesting article in a science mag last year about a study that looked at how conservatives and liberals think. Liberals tend to think in more complex patterns, looking at all sides of an issue, seeing various POV's and trying to process complexities. Conservatives think in black/white, right/wrong, I/O. They do not comprehend or deal with complexity and compromise anywhere near as well as liberals. It's just a fact. People may get offended by that, but it plays out daily everywhere we look. Concrete vs. Complex.
And which kind of thinking do you believe meshes better with warfare?
I think it's a correct observation for the reason you point out, but hardly a reason for ridicule.
In fact, I would venture that it is a valuable trait, to think things through, to realize the complexities in the issues before our nation.
Another place where you can see evidence of this is in the monolithic block of votes the Republicans amass in Congress. Rarely do you see that kind of unanimity by Democrats.
It reminds me of the patter song in Gilbert & Sullivan's "HMS Pinafore,"
The Lord of the Admiralty is explaining to a crowd of admirers how he achieved his lofty position:
"I always answered to my Party's call...
...and I never thought of thinking for myself at all."
Why the GOP Should Shut Up"> about earmarks.
The Lord of the Admiralty is explaining to a crowd of admirers how he achieved his lofty position:
"I always answered to my Party's call...
...and I never thought of thinking for myself at all."'
That's a good quote, Bert. I'll have to remember that one.
Here's the whole patter song from which that quote comes.
When you read this, you realize that politics hasn't changed much since 19th Century England.
They say they'll use them as they see fit since the Constitution gives them the power of the purse.
Obama said, "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government." Huh?
He added that the projects, known as earmarks, are often wasteful and without merit....
but he signed it !!
Whet was originally objectionable was earmarks assigned to a bill at the last minute without transparency or debate, insuring that funds would go to the requesters home state for his purposes, that is buying future votes! From there it has deteriorated to all designated funds which is what all funds under zero based budgeting would be!
Actually, only about 5% of budgeted items are earmarked and most of them are quite reasonable and proper so this is a practice who's evil reputation has far exceeded its more benign nature.
We are in a severe drought here and some farmers may get their water shut off. I too need my irrigation but we could use some earmarks to keep the water flowing and farmers growing crops and the economy.
As James says, most earmarks are legitimate efforts by politicians to fund worthwhile projects in their home states. Isn't that what a representative of the people is supposed to do? I know about the predicament of many farmers due to drought conditions. That is certainly true here in California. Farmers are hurting, and that is going to hit us all in the billfold sooner or later with higher food costs.
That is certainly a legitimate use of earmarks.
As James points out, we need to change the procedures of approving earmarks, but that is no reason to throw them out altogether, as some Republicans are suggesting. Of course, many of them are among the most avid "earmarkers." Such is the state of hardball politics as it is played by certain members of that other party that starts with R.