Feb. 14, 2008
Candidates' Earmarks Exposed
Washington Post: Clinton, Obama Helped Secure Millions For Projects, McCain Abstained
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Earmark Reality Check
Over $15 billion worth of earmarks spending was added to Congress' 2008 budget. Sharyl Attkisson looks at which members of Congress got the money.
-
Video
King Of Congressional Earmarks
In 2007 members of the House and Senate slipped more than 11,000 "earmarks" into the federal budget. No one has racked up more than Sen. Robert Byrd, and no one's prouder. Sharyl Attkisson reports.
-
Video
2007: Billions In Earmarks
Sharyl Attkisson hasn't made many friends on Capitol Hill this year. But her reports have uncovered billions in wasteful government spending and congressional earmarks.
-
Photo
As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. (CBS/AP)
-
Blog
Enter The Crypt
Read the latest behind-the-scenes news from Capitol Hill in this blog provided by our partner The Politico.
-
Blog
Primary Source
Armen Keteyian and his investigative team keep you informed daily on their blog.
From Our Partner:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure more than $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year's spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group.
Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, Clinton supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.
As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects, while Obama adheres to a policy of using them only to support public entities.
McCain is using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack against Clinton, even running an Internet ad mocking her $1 million request for a museum devoted to the Woodstock music festival. Obama has been criticized for using a 2006 earmark to secure money for the University of Chicago hospital where his wife worked until last year.
The new report, by Taxpayers for Common Sense, is the first to show all the earmarks each lawmaker added to spending bills for an entire fiscal year. It notes the explosive growth of the practice, which amounted to more than $18 billion in fiscal 2008.
Stung by criticism of earmarks, President Bush and an increasing number of lawmakers have started to campaign against their use.
In his State of the Union address last month, Bush vowed to veto any spending bills for 2009 that do not cut back on earmarks, and 22 House members have sworn off seeking them. While most are Republicans, Democratic Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), a key committee chairman and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), joined yesterday.
"Congressional spending through earmarks is out of control," he said
Lawmakers previously were allowed to include multimillion-dollar items in spending bills without publicly identifying themselves as sponsors. House and Senate Democrats passed measures last year that require open sponsorship of earmarks.
Though they still make up a tiny fraction of the federal budget, earmarks remain a multibillion-dollar business on Capitol Hill. Congress added 12,881 earmarks, worth $18.3 billion, to spending bills that Bush signed into law, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. That is a 23 percent drop from the record level of earmarked money for fiscal 2005.
Democrats used their new majority to secure 57 percent of total earmarked money in fiscal 2008. Members of both parties even supported a $4.5 billion pot of earmarks.
"An increasing number of individual members recognize that a moratorium is needed until significant reforms are made to the earmark process," Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime earmark opponent, said yesterday.
The new report showed that Clinton co-sponsored a $1.6 million earmark to fund technology development by a defense contractor and steered $3 million to the Rochester Institute of Technology for a fuel-cell-technology program. Another $1.6 million earmark she supported went to Weidlinger Associates, a New York engineering consulting firm working on shock testing for naval vessels.
Obama, meanwhile, helped steer $3.4 million to the Rock Island Arsenal for a military fire and police building, and was the sole sponsor of a measure seeking $750,000 for an education initiative at Benedictine University in Illinois.
McCain, who has helped lead efforts to strip some earmarks from Senate bills, has not focused on the money headed to his home state. Other Arizona lawmakers secured more than $214 million in pet projects in fiscal 2008 spending bills.
The candidates "do illustrate the broad spectrum of attitudes toward earmarks in Congress," said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Clinton stands behind her earmarked projects as a sign of her work for constituents.
"Senator Clinton is very proud to have helped New York-based projects that train nurses, improve our hospitals, help those suffering from 9/11-related health ailments, bolster our national and homeland security, and provide our brave men and women in uniform with the resources they need to achieve their mission, while keeping them safe," said Philippe Reines, Clinton's spokesman.
Clinton's $342 million total consists almost entirely of projects she supported with other New York lawmakers. On her own, she secured one $98,000 earmark.
Quote
Her total is unusually large for someone who does not serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee, where earmarks are doled out, usually on a members-first basis. Of the 10 largest recipients, Clinton is the only senator not on the committee, the report found.An increasing number of individual members recognize that a moratorium is needed until significant reforms are made to the earmark process.
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.Obama's criticism of Washington's insider culture is a linchpin of his campaign; he supports earmarks only for public entities such as schools and hospitals. He secured $3.3 million in earmarks through his own sponsorship, and collected $88 million in concert with other Illinois lawmakers.
Since last year, he has publicly released the letters he submits to the Appropriations Committee seeking support for the spending items, but has not released those submitted to the committee in 2005 and 2006.
On the campaign trail, Obama has specifically mentioned his ability to work across the aisle "on opening up and creating more transparency in government," so that all government spending is "posted on a searchable database."
Bill Burton, his campaign spokesman, said Obama's level of disclosure exceeds Clinton's. "We began running for president in 2007 and, unlike our opponent, we thought it was appropriate to release our earmarks," he said.
McCain has used his opposition to earmarks to rally conservatives reluctant to support his presidential campaign, regularly criticizing Clinton for such spending.
He attacked her Woodstock museum request, saying at an October GOP debate that he was "tied up" and unable to attend the 1969 music festival -- a sly reference to his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. "That kind of thing is going to stop when I'm president of the United States of America," McCain said earlier this month of Clinton's earmarks.
Her item was rejected in a Senate vote last fall, among the few earmarks that were turned down in a House or Senate vote.
Staff writer Matthew Mosk contributed to this report.
By Paul Kane
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
|
|
What you got today Fuzzy?
Well
Today I got a Nightmare or Dream for you, you know that period between waking consciousness and la la land.
Any way I dreampt, I was walking along a cow trail
amidst some standing oaks and rolling hills, kinda like what you might see in Ohio,
any way I came upon an earthen Cow barn kinda shed,
and walking inside looking at the Anvil and Stuff
I found a corpse, I recognized it immediately by the Stove Pipe hat as Abe Lincoln, except he had long black stringy french braided hair, any way I went to walk away and I could see his bony hand reach out and grab the cuff of my pant leg like he wanted to talk, so I started screaming let go of me. any way I woke up, I think it was the life force of Honest Abe,
Fuzzy you don`t believe in silly dreams ?
I do somebudy said you should have listened to him,
but I just took it he didn`t like my politics and to let the nation be.
so that`s it who ever you folks pick is good enough for me. and I sincerely apologize to any members of Congress Or the White House I may have offended this year as well as any and all candidates.
Sincerely your sleepless Bear
Fuzzy
Federal earmarks are evidence that funding problems exist for items at another layer of government.
It is risky and foolish for political leaders to complain to their constituents for being consumers of government.
It compares to parents complaining to their children for even existing or being too expensive to rear.
Both are corporate-state politicians. Large sources of Obama money are law firms, investment houses, and real estate companies, and 80 percent of his donors are affiliated with business, compared to 85 percent for Clinton.Neither are true progressives or populists, like Kucinich and Edwards.
Both Clinton the fighter and Obama the talker will sell out once they confront presidential realities. Why? Because plutocracies know how to retain power AFTER elections. After two years it will be clear that the new president will have failed to extract the US from Iraq, will have failed to deliver universal health care, will have failed to address illegal immigration, will have done nothing to get a new and serious 9/11 investigation, will have done nothing to stop middle-class-killing globalization, and will have utterly disappointed the vast majority of Americans.
Finally, for those seeking serious political system reforms, it is troubling that neither Clinton nor, especially, Obama have the courage to advocate needed constitutional amendments, such as replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote for president, getting all private money out of politics, making universal health care a right, and preventing presidential signing statements that undermine laws.
As an Illinois state legislator, Obama voted "present" (on a bill that would have that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion.
Obama voted "present" a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1.
Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of ***-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.
Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills and he voted "present" on a series of bills that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. The Federal version of this bill passed the US Senate 100-0.
Obama voted "present" a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.
Is this the kind of person we want to be President? Is the Senator willing to take a stand on anything? Sure he makes a good speech, but what does he stand for?? Make sure you are voting for GOOD change, not just any change!
Posted by drputt45 at 12:55 PM : Feb 14, 2008"
It''s under the couch...the dog got it.
Posted by jack3213 at 11:50 AM : Feb 14, 2008"
While I heartily agree with your sentiment, I think we need to get a Dem dominant majority in congress before there can be any action on amendments. Repubs will simply stall and obfuscate otherwise.
Obama''s actions are typical of all the politicians. "Present" is a way to keep one''s voting inclination private, used by all of them on occasion.
I am voting for Huck if he makes it. If not, I am one of the now ex-Republicans, after 45 years, who will vote for Obama as a vote against McCain, the open-borders man, and against Hillary the Hag.
The GOP is gone for all practical purposes in my opinion. The powers that control the presidency will take care of the war, the economy and the judge appointments. We need the borders closed and the illegals deported and every politician will not listen to the people. Obama is fresh and full of vigor and certainly a lot more entertaining than any of the other candidates. That''s about all that it is any more, just entertainment. He better learn fluent spanish and farsi.
Posted by WV4Huckabee at 12:54 PM : Feb 14, 2008"
Let''s see, a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage, pro-environment, anti-big business liberal Democrat...YES! not only yes but HE11 YES. The change will be booting you narrow minded self indulgant pr1cks out of office.
Posted by drivelphobe at 01:36 PM : Feb 14, 2008"
But you''d vote for Huckabee who just moved his offices to the Cayman islands to avoid paying taxes....nice.
I like the Huckster. He''s the most entertaining of all and I prefer to use him as the vote against McCain. Have a great Valentine''s Day.
What do facts have to do with anything when there''s a presidential election? What are the facts? Every bit of info is distorted and massaged. Lies are everywhere. Who are the "you guys" you refer to?
Is alburbooks a Democrat? Are you an independent?
Sometimes legislators vote present to avoid taking a stand; more often they just don''t show up to aviod taking a stand. Many times they vote present because they generally support legislation but want to make changes by adding or taking out a certain provision.
It''s how legislators can keep bad legislation from being passed while negotiating with other legislators
to make needed improvements before passage.
Responsible legislators work to improve legislation right up to the end. Bad legislators vote down good legisaltion or vote for bad legislation. A case in point would be Hillary''s votes on Iraq.
It''s the one that says these clowns deserve a lifetime pension and lifetime healthcare benefits !
There is no reason they should get either one.
Were you complaining about the media when Hillary was being virtually inaugurated by the MSM during all of 2007?
Media bias in the eye of the beholder, all supporters of all candidates perceive their favorite as the target of a vast right/left wing conspiracy.
Obama has had to deal with constant rumors about his faith, his heritage, his blackness, etc. from day 1 and she''s had to deal with scrutiny related to her husband, her gender, etc. as well.
When Obama supporters have complained we''ve been told not so subtly by the Clintonistas to toughen up and stop whinig. Well...right back at ya guys!
josiehood,
I think what alburbooks is trying to say is that McCain has been porking the Pentagon..I tend to agree.
Hadenuff,
It''s pretty clear that you''ve already rubbed all your brain cells together. I searched your entire post for facts and only found diluted imaginations( as opposed to undiluted imaginations).
That said.
OBAMA WILL BEAT CLINTON AND McCAIN BECAUSE NO EDUCATED PERSON WANTS TO ATTACK HIM.
"Only once in a very long time does politics become more than politics, that is something more than partisan struggle, vote bartering, or arena of ambition...
... on rare occasion, old arrangements and conventional wisdom come unstuck. This happens in periods of rapid if not revolutionary change. We find ourselves now in one of those periods. The forces of globalization, information, eroding sovereignties, and transformation of war ensure that traditional leaders and conventional politics can only muddle through at best and fail badly at worst."
"Therefore, the good of man must be the end of the science of politics."
So let it be that our YOUTH sees HOPE in UNIVERSAL TRUTH:
"Love, or we shall perish."
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
GO! OBAMA!
Let''s see....2 + -1 (Bush) -1 (McCain) = 0 WHEW....It''s okay guys....we''re still ahead!!
I agree - If our troops fighting in Iraq have to face GEORGE RAISING the COST of healthcare for THEIR FAMILIES while they''re over there dodging bullets as part of his NEW BUDGET and IF they live to retirement only to face PAYING through the nose for ANY decent healthcare they need (often BECAUSE of their service); then the LEAST our federal politicians can do is go on the SAME PLAN as our troops for their "service" in those "dangerous" multimillion dollar offices they inhabit.
In other words, as usual--Hilary will say, do and promise ANYTHING to anyone to get elected--then like she did to the DLs for illegals and the pledges she signed to the DNC--when it is convenient for her--she will RENEGE on all promises, as usual. LMAO
I like the Huckster. He''''s the most entertaining of all and I prefer to use him as the vote against McCain. Have a great Valentine''''s Day.
Posted by drivelphobe at 02:01 PM : Feb 14, 2008
You better look up the definition of a "Huckster" it rates right up there with "Con" both means an untrustworthy individual who scams the public for their own monetary gain. The only people who would elect a person called "the Huckster" are the illiterate.
I''m sure glad I''m only voting for him as a vote against McCain and Hillary, and not electing him. It would be a tough life thinking you think I''m illiterate. Were you born omniscient?
They should also show a picture of her pledge to the DNC about not honoring the delegates of Michigan and Florida, then have a Blurb--"If Hilary promises you ANYTHING--she might honor it (then show the co sponsor and the pledge) and say "Or she might not"
Then the final remark "Hilary Clinton will do anything , say anything and for the moment, promise anything--to get elected. And we all know how well Hilary does not keep her promises.
I''''m sure glad I''''m only voting for him as a vote against McCain and Hillary, and not electing him. It would be a tough life thinking you think I''''m illiterate. Were you born omniscient?
Posted by drivelphobe at 07:05 PM : Feb 14, 2008
No, I wasn''t and am still not all knowing--but I also was not born with an extensive vocabulary. It was something that I worked at for years and therefore am cognizant that many people are too lazy or apathetic to actually understand the words they use or the true meaning of that word. Huckster is a colloquial term--and if more people knew what it actually meant--they definitely would not use it to describe anyone they liked or trusted.
Do you really want four more years of the Clinton twins?
I don''''t.
And just where does all the experience Hillary claim to have, come from?
A shyster lawyer in Arkansas linked to scandals there.
First Lady for eight years, DUH!, she did not sit in on any national or international meetings.
A Senator from New York, gee, and she bought that one.
And yes, she also received major contributions from an indicted major donor named Norman Hsu, monies that she had to return.
And let''''s go back to the scandal that Hillary was involved in in Arkansas that had to do with fraudulent cattle trading that made Hillary over a hundred thousand dollars.
Ladies, please don''''t vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. That would be the worst, simplest, and most naive of reasons to vote for her.
Incidentally, I am a male, white, 72 year old veteran, who voted for more women than men to hold my state''''s political offices.
A woman will undoubtedly become president one day, but it won''''t be Hillary.
What Americans really want to know is why did Hilary let her former campaign mgr go to jail for failing to report a 200,000.00 donation from Peter Paul and Stan Lee, why then Bill Clinton lie and steal Stan Lee''''s business partner and why Clinton had flunkies tell the court that she never knew Peter Paul or Stan Lee nor had she ever met them--then they can roll the video of her chumming it up with Peter Paul including planning an illegal fund raiser where she solicits funds from Cher worth more than the fee She should have been charged for Cher--If she can do all of that with a straight face--we can at least hear her out--at least long enough for them to convene a special grand jury for her--and oh yeah--how did the case get turned over to a judge Bill appointed? This case is pending in CA--quite an ugly little secret if it comes out--probably just one of many. LOL
On torture: Obama voted to restrict methods to the Army field manual version (meaning no waterboarding)
Hilary voted to NOT restrict methods of torture
On the infamous FISA bill
On illegal wire taps--Obama voted to NOT grant immunity to telecom companies for allowing wire taps
McCAin voted to grant immunity
Hilary was in Washington, but failed to show up to vote either way--instead she left town, she also failed to vote on any aspect of FISA according to TURLEY--so she is not on record for or against why is that?
--------------------------
Internet is a good place to share information and meet friends. I recently found a nice web site called pubspa.com where you can meet friends who have same interest in beauty care, massage, wellness and spa treatment. You can also share blog, video, game, photos, etc with people from all over the world. Unlike other online dating sites where you have to pay membership fee, this site is totally free. I already made several interesting friends there
I remember New York under David Dinkins...Now this craze with BO, just like the craze before election of DD. The entire country will become just like New York City under mayor David Dinkins. If it happens, I will not be coming back to the States - as much I as love my country I love my life and lives of my loved ones even more!
Bush and McCain are in agreement on making the tax breaks permanent for those making over $250k a year, oh that will fix the 9 trillion dollar deficet, brilliant! If the very richest in our country are not paying guess who will? They also want to keep a long term presence in Iraq; if you recall bin Ladens rational for 911 was our bases in Saudi Arabia. Every dollar spent on Iraq is one less spent on getting bin Laden, hint %u2013 you wont find him in Iraq or Iran. They support big pharmaceuticals instead of working families when it comes to healthcare. That%u2019s how we ended up in the mess we are now in.
You can go down the entire list, in every case they support the corporate interest over working families every single time. Whether it is the large military contractors, big oil, the large drug companies, the huge telephone conglomerates, mega churches to the richest 10 percent of the population they will embrace them over working families every single time.
Folks this is Bush 2.0; theres that old saying, if you want to keep getting what you are getting keep doing what you are doing.
I remember New York under David Dinkins...Now this craze with BO, just like the craze before election of DD. The entire country will become just like New York City under mayor David Dinkins. If it happens, I will not be coming back to the States - as much I as love my country I love my life and lives of my loved ones even more!
Posted by Orloff3 at 02:23 AM : Feb 15, 2008
Just so you know - if JM is elected - the RubberStamp will continue down the present path and you will have NOTHING to come home to...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by craigh9 at 08:39 AM : Feb 15, 2008
Just as a for instance, sir, the SCHIP program.
Go read up!
-
by ctom2008
February 15, 2008 2:30 PM PST
- GOP will lose this election and it deserves it right. GOP members forgot their oath in their Contract with America and where has it gotten us today? They spent their precious political capital needlessly by chasing down Bill''s obession with fat women instead of his fat entitlement programs. Understandably, under Bush, money was needed for national security but earmarks continued unabated and lookes like gov''t grew bigger under GOP watch. GOP can''t blame the Dems since GOP controlled everything until they got their rear ends kicked two years ago. It seems that wasn''t enough and this time, GOP deserves to get its teeth kicked in as well. Stop the spending and do something other than building bridges to nowhere or paying mercenaries $100K for a job any E4 could do. I feel totally ripped off by the GOP. Dems at least don''t hide their spending tendacies and did not do an Imelda Marcos on the federal budget. Lose, lose, lose, and lose badly GOP.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 46 Comments