Uhhhh ... bayyy-cuuunnnn
This week, Republican senators and representatives are self-righteously sniffing at $8 billion in earmark spending that is part of the just-signed $410 billion omnibus spending bill. Earmarks account for two percent of the bill’s spending, and Rebublican earmarks account for $3.2 billion (40%) of these monies. Considering Republicans make up 41% of Congress, they are well represented in the pork barrel.
For your viewing pleasure, here are 50 Republican earmarks, totalling $312 million. I could have listed more, but — believe it or not — I have a life. Pay special attention to how well Alabama and Mississippi are doing. Alabama is home to Richard Shelby, who railed against stimulus and assistance to automakers and stabilizing the financial market, blah, blah, blah. Thad Cochran is the senior senator for Mississippi. He is also the ranking Republican member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and, boy, does it show. Cochran’s name is on oodles of stuff. Incidentally, in FY 2008, Mississippi received $113 per capita in earmark spending! I wonder how much of 2009′s earmark spending Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is going to refuse. I also found a $40 million earmark for South Carolina, to build a federal law enforcement training dormitory in Charleston. This earmark does not have a designated sponsor, but it is a big ol’ chunk of change going to a state with yet another Republican governor, Mark Sanford, who is contorting himself as a leading voice for fiscal responsibility. One of the 50 earmarks is actually sponsored by the two Democratic senators from Virginia, a $30 million appropriation for the Dulles Corridor rail project. I would love to see Minority Twerp Eric Cantor blast this spending. Mitch McConnell, of course, is well represented, and I even found a couple of Ted Stevens’ and Larry Craig’s earmark requests! (I listed one for each honorable senator.)
Enjoy!
Click to enlarge
My friend Jeff had a post at MNPublius on the subject of earmarks and how “pork” is a word that’s been overused to the point of losing its meaning. I’m particularly struck by the following:
Posted by Steve | March 12, 2009, 2:41 pmI loved Stewart last night, pointing out that Lindsey Graham whines about “pork” until it’s his district. Then he’s unabashedly for it.
Posted by Ames | March 12, 2009, 3:26 pmSadly, Pork os another way for Republicans to deflect real examination of their economic failures. Want to hide how big you actually made government? Rail about Pork.
I think Pigs should be insulted. Maybe they will sue – when they are done wallowing in mud or whatever it is they do.
Posted by Philip H. | March 12, 2009, 4:43 pmSo then, Ames, DM and Phillip….is your point that pork is okay or that conservatives are hypocrites?
Posted by Mike | March 13, 2009, 8:47 amMike
One man’s pork is another man’s vital investment in the nations future.
Posted by linus | March 13, 2009, 11:25 amMike,
I think you’re missing the point. When you ask “Is pork okay?” you’re kinda poisoning the well. You’re deliberately using a word to affect a reader’s perception of what you’re talking about. That’s the point. The Republicans are saying the bill should be thrown out because it’s laden with “pork,” which instantly conjures up the image of congressmen stealing tax payer dollars to build a gazeebo somewhere for half a million dollars. It distracts people from actually reading the bill and seeing where the money is going, which is to projects that could benefit their districts. It also prevents them from participating in what is a legitimate argument- are these projects actually beneficial and worth taxpayer dollars? If Republicans want to have that fight, I see no problem with that. But they’d rather say it’s all “pork” and throw the bill away.
And nobody is saying that conservatives are hypocrits. We are saying that the political party that identifies themselves as conservative are acting hypocritically by ranting against “pork” while lobbying for their own projects at the same time.
Posted by MarshallDog | March 13, 2009, 11:28 amMarshallDog,
I’d love to see a line-by-line debate over all 9,000 earmarks. I don’t get the sense that liberals are interested in that discussion. They control the debate, they control the timetable. They aren’t giving anyone enough time to digest anything.
Posted by Mike | March 13, 2009, 1:06 pmMike,
For myself, I think most pork is bad, no matter the political persuasion of the author. I say most, because there are two types of earmarks in the federal budget, and one is increases to existing lines because congress thinks an agency needs more $$ to do it’s job then the Administration did. Those “soft” earmarks are not generally the subject of these type of debates.
I would be more inclined to accept earmarks from both parties if it wasn’t used as a rallying cry in political battles. I see nothing wrong with a Senator standing up and saying that spending $X Milion in her state is good because of Y reason. Where I, and many federal employees smack our foreheads againstthe keyboard, is when that is followed by raving about how all other pork is bad.
I think one reason most liberasl won’t debate you on earmarks, incedently, is that we’re a little tired of Republicans running up massive deficits, and then lecturing us that they are the keepers of the fiscal conservative torch. Sort of a pot v. kettle thing.
And I still maintain that pigs should be insulted by having earmarks labeled as pork.
Posted by Philip H. | March 13, 2009, 1:16 pm8 Mike “… They aren’t giving anyone enough time to digest anything.”
Ahh, so now you need time to digest but whilst the entire global community wanted time to digest pre-emptive mass murder of millions based on OBVIOUS false propaganda . . . the US citizenry did take time to digest GOP’ers fist pumping kill, kill, kill mantra and “traitor” screaming from the roof name-calling . . .
Good thing there are democracies around the world publishing and digesting the OBVIOUS false intelligence and inter-office communications discussing those OBVIOUS false intelligence since we certainly didn’t see it here in our despotic regime of the last eight years.
Posted by Augie | March 13, 2009, 1:45 pmAugie,
Let me see if I can represent this conversation with a visual:
|
|
|
|
|
|
v
(that’s supposed to be a vertical line with a little arrow at the end)
this next picture represents your comment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
———————>
Complete left turn. In the words of Gold Five: Stay on target….stay on target!
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | March 15, 2009, 7:22 pmYou know, Mike, the visual’s something I hadn’t thought of. I was just going to go with an analogy, like that arguments regarding in the basis for the Iraq War are to discussions of domestic spending policy what arguments about the designated hitter rule are to discussions of chanoyu.
Posted by Steve | March 15, 2009, 9:18 pm