The Pork Man Cometh


The Republicans have declared war on earmarks and government spending as a signature issue for their newly empowered ranks in Congress. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that not everyone is on board. On Thursday, the Senate GOP announced that six freshmen Republicans would be appointed to the Senate Appropriations Committee—including Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the former House member whose love for earmarks has led critics to dub him “the Pork-Meister.”

Despite criticism from his own Republican colleagues, Blunt has unapologetically embraced earmarks and shot down attempts to curb them. In fiscal year 2010, for example, Blunt personally requested some $153 million in earmarks, and he steadfastly opposed the Senate Republicans’ attempt to prohibit earmarks in November. During his run for Senate, his reputation for larding up bills led his Democratic opponent, Robin Carnahan, to cast him as a “prodigious pork-meister” that cost taxpayers “$20 billion a year,” contradicting his own calls for fiscal austerity.

The attacks didn’t ultimately stick with voters, but that didn’t stop the Wall Street Journal from dubbing the Missouri Republican “Senator Earmark” shortly after he was elected. Blunt hasn’t let up on his defense of pork since he’s taken office, either. After this week’s State of the Union address, Blunt slammed Obama’s vow to veto any bill with earmarks as a “power grab” that would “give the president too much power,” arguing that the Constitution gave Congress the expiclit authority to dictate how spending would be apportioned. Blunt’s pork-loving ways have drawn fire from the GOP’s tea party right, who’ve already been infuriated with his House vote to support the Troubled Asset Relief Program, among other government spending bills.

Other Senate GOP newcomers—including Rand Paul (R-Ky.)—have gone squishy on earmarks as well. But Blunt’s exceptionally staunch defense of earmarks could prove to be one of the biggest thorns in the GOP’s side when it comes to the party’s war on pork.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.