«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

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. 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.

In the Senate, Thad Cochran (R-MS) is the top porker with $837,256,500 in earmarks. No one else is even close. Landrieu (D-LA), Stevens (R-AK), Bond (R-MO), Shelby (R-AL), Inouye (D-HI), and Byrd (D-WV) all have between $400 million and $500 million in earmarks.

Hillary Clinton is responsible for the 10th most in earmark spending in FY08, with $342,403,455 on her tab. Barack Obama is 25th from the bottom, with $98,648,720. John McCain has asked for $0.

The five other Senators who have introduced zero earmarks are Coburn (R-OK), DeMint (R-SC), Feingold (D-WI), McCaskill (D-MO), and Wicker (R-MS). Wicker doesn't get a pass, though, because he just replaced Trent Lott. Wicker came from the House, where he was that body's most prolific porker, with $177,988,500 in FY08 earmarks.

In the House, Democrats have 15 of the top 20 slots in terms of earmark sponsorship. Of the ten Representatives who have asked for $0 in earmarks, all are Republicans. Sigh.

Comments

-President's line item for missile defense in FY2009 budget : $10.4 billion

-Total earmarks in FY2008 spending bills: $15.3 billion

-President's request for FY2008 Iraq War funding: $196 billion

-Estimated amount of interest due on the national debt in FY2008: $250 billion

-Estimated total cost of Iraq war (so far), according to Joseph Stiglitz: $3 trillion

Earmarks aren't the greatest thing in the world, but let's keep some perspective here.

Posted by: snake on 03/11/08 at 9:19 AM Respond

Yeah, we need to talk about this one.........

Posted by: Katherine on 03/11/08 at 9:47 AM Respond

Snake is correct to point out a difference in scope between the Bush Admin.'s misspending and the problem of earmarks. But I think it goes beyond strict dollar counts. Earmarks are at the core of the issue when it comes to transparency and good government. There's simply no reason lawmakers should be able to introduce an unlimited number of pet projects into the congressional budget, which then go unexamined by their colleagues before a vote. There are legitimate ways to distribute small amounts of money to needy causes -- this is not one of them. As long as this practice continues, gov't efficiency is hindered (because budgetary decisions aren't made based on what is best for the country) and the possibility for political back-scratching and patronage remains within easy reach.

Posted by: Jonathan Stein on 03/11/08 at 9:54 AM Respond

I agree with you on many points. Earmarking can be used as a vehicle for corruption. Many projects are fine, and I think far more good has come from them than the media likes to believe.

Overall, I think I'm just salty about it because is a blatantly political issue, and nothing more. The Republicans complaining about this is so disingenuous, it makes my stomach turn. While the House was in their control, earmarking exploded, and when the Democrats took control there was a 1 year moratorium on earmarks. Where was the media on that one? We've already done this, to years ago! And since that time, we've made huge steps toward greater transparency. If I thought that the reason this issue was so huge right now had anything to do with better government, that's one thing, but the reason Boehner and everyone on that side of the isle is pushing it so much is because they have no other cards to play (aside from screaming about illegals).

Some good will come of this, and that I can appreciate. It's just unfair that the mantel of fiscal responsibility will be put back in the hands of Republicans when this is over when they clearly could care less, what with all the debt the have racked up over the last 10 years.

Not to mention that it is the House of Reps. constitutional responsibility to direct government spending...

Posted by: Katherine on 03/11/08 at 10:26 AM Respond

Absolutely right, K. Reckless and unnecessary spending exploded under Republican leadership, and if they get credit for getting earmarks under control, that's a crime.

And I'll agree that earmarks often push money to worthwhile causes (often they don't, of course), but isn't it true that funding for those causes could be secured through more standard and above-board means?

Posted by: Jonathan Stein on 03/11/08 at 10:47 AM Respond