Presidential Campaign Leads to Progress on Earmarks
Here's something all Democrats, who have seen precious little unity lately, can get behind: Sen. Barack Obama and Sen....
Here's something all Democrats, who have seen precious little unity lately, can get behind: Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are sponsoring the one-year moratorium on earmarks that is being included in the 2009 budget plan. They join John McCain and small band of GOP Senators in the effort.
McCain is one of strongest critics of earmarks in Congress, a position that puts him at odds with many epic porkers in his party. McCain has gone so far as to promise that if he is elected president he will veto any budget bill with earmarks in it. It's one of the few good things about a McCain presidency, though I can't agree with the causes that McCain would put the saved money towards. Like 100 years of war and whatnot.
Clinton and Obama are probably toughening up on earmarks because they don't want to cede the issue of good government and fiscal responsibility to McCain in the general election. In the past, Obama has used earmarks to a mild degree while Clinton has been an ample porker, securing 360 earmarks between 2002 and 2006 at a combined cost of $2.2 billion. (Both candidates voluntarily make their earmarks public.) Senator Clinton's current position on earmarks — and to some extent, Senator Obama's — is something of a change of heart, but we welcome it.
Update: Looks like the moratorium may not be going anywhere.
Update: I got my hands on a Taxpayers for Common Sense spreadsheet that tallies all of the earmarks introduced by each member of Congress in FY08 appropriations bills. Come with me for some exploring, after the jump.