- ‹ previous
- 5225 of 8836
- next ›
Clinton Loads Up on Earmarks, Cementing Status as Big Money Candidate
Because there are few substantive differences between the Democratic presidential candidates on the issues, primary voters are left with less-than-ideal metrics like "likeability" and "who Oprah favors."
I'd like to propose a new and better issue with which to make a distinction: Big Money. That is, Hillary Clinton plays the game of money in politics -- and plays it well -- while Obama opts out, arguing that a political system awash in cash can't possibly serve everyday American citizens. The impetus for this argument comes from an article from today's Hill that reveals "Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)." The article goes on to explain the bill has $5.4 billion in earmarks, 26 of which were requested by Clinton, to the tune of $148.4 million in federal spending. (To be fair, most of the earmarks requested by Clinton were also requested by the senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer.) According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Clinton secured 360 earmarks in the four years between 2002 and 2006, worth a combined $2.2 billion.
Contrast all that with Barack Obama, who has only one earmark request in the defense bill. It's a request made by several senators on behalf of a Department of Education program for children with severe disabilities.
This shouldn't be mind-blowing stuff. Consider that after Clinton's bid for comprehensive health care reform failed in the nineties, she went on to become the Senate's second-largest recipient of healthcare industry contributions. Or that her advisers "represent some of the weightiest interests in corporate America." Or that she happily takes campaign contributions from lobbyists and special interests, while Obama has pledged to take no money from such folks, even going so far as to return $50,000 in contributions after he discovered the givers were lobbyists.
Clinton is a divisive figure who voted for the Iraq War, occasionally takes ideologically troubling positions, and whose presidency would perpetuate the dynastic nature of America's presidential politics. I'm not saying I can't support her, but I do find it trying. And her willingness to eat from the money trough while other Democrats try to clean up Washington makes it even more difficult.
She is clearly the Establishment Candidate. Look at her corporate history, the corporate Board of Directors that she was on and etc. "Pay to play." It is all a shell game. The names may change, but the Establishment still rules in both parties. Kucinich is not an Establishment Candidate. Vote your principles and your vote will really stand out and not get buried with the herd. Dont settle for mediocrity.
So:
Earmarks for kids with disabilities: good.
All other earmarks: bad.
Got it.
Earmarks I like, and others don't think are appropriate.
Earmarks I don't like, and some others think are entirely worthy.
History of government should be telling us, whether it's earmarks or any other form of government program, we won't ever be getting just the ones WE think are good, or even OK. We'll be getting at least an equal number that we view as pure, unadulterated pork.
The sooner we voters learn this simple lesson, the sooner we can make real substantive changes in how our government has been operating.
Shouldn't someone ask the question: Why the hell is funding for a Department of Education program for children with severe disabilities ending up in a Department of Defense spending bill?
There's something fundamentally wrong there, that we should be raising more fuss about than we seem to be doing.
Thanks for the perspective on Hillary. I didn't know that about her health care industry support. I recall in a fundraising letter she advocated for access to health care for all children, but conspicuously left out adults. I'm surprised at America's attitude about access to health care in 2007. It's backward. Everyone should have access, and some should have it nearly free. Maybe we should move to Canada...
gvc is right; riders to any bill should actually apply to that bill, not be a separate issue.
Most of the congress critters don't bother reading a bill anyhow. Remember the one bill allowing the IRS to reveal tax returns that passed...and was hastily repealed when they sobered up and realized what they had done?
Good governance is all about access to justice. That doesn't mean socking it to people you don't like. That doesn't mean restricting choices and options for citizen taxpayers. Legal reform should be about opening up access to the justice system and hold bad actors accountable. Tort reform should be about lowering costs of justice not limiting its impact on large corporations. Clinton is good at paying off top leaders for liberal causes and throwing bones to conservatives. It's a lot cheaper for the wealthy than real access to the justice system.
Call Hillary the "establishment" canidate all you want. Dennis Kuchichicichchcicich is in la-la land with his idealist peace crap, univeral health care. It sounds great in theory but it's not going to happen because voting for Dennis is simply about making a statement- the guy has no chance. Talk about soft on security.....
"Why the hell is funding for a Department of Education program for children with severe disabilities ending up in a Department of Defense spending bill?"
Programs like this end up in the defense bill because passage there makes it far harder for Our Fearless Leader to veto the funding. The composition of the Senate and Senate rules make it impossible to move bills forward without support from both parties - remember that there are around 54 filibusters in place at the present time, blocking legislation and spending bills, and it will take 60 votes to end each one.
On the bigger issue of whether earmarks, which attenuate or completely avoid product and contracting competition, are good for government, it may be too late to make that argument. At least with THESE earmarks, the sponsors are willing to admit their roles. And even if Obama were president, I haven't seen any coherent plan to end the practice. Is he planning to veto every bill that contains an earmark? Good luck!