Candidates' Earmarks Exposed

Washington Post: Clinton, Obama Helped Secure Millions For Projects, McCain Abstained

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Paul Kane.

---

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.

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.

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.

[ctom2008]

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.

[rowdytexan2]

Now Hillary declares herself in the "solutions business" - once again I ask anyone - ANYONE - to provide any solution she provided to anything. Any major initiative she has undertaken has been met with FAILURE - not solutions. I''''''''''''''''d much rather give the opportunity to someone with less experience that might be able to make a difference versus someone that has shown zero ability to accomplish anything in "her 35 years of experience".




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by craigh9 at 08:39 AM : Feb 15, 2008

Just as a for instance, sir, the SCHIP program.

Go read up!

[artrick-2009]

I''m glad to see no Republican Senator voted to give any earmarks money to their states, sinces it sounds like only Democratic Senators voted to give all that bling to their states. that must mean the Republicans were out steal the cash from their hidden agenda funds. except made Texas and or Alaska.

[ioweign]

I currently live and work in Zurich, but pay a very close attention to the race back home.
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...

[taotxzen1]

The justification of torture was the only difference that I saw between McCain and Bush, now it appears McCain has joined the Dark Side in order to appease the extreme right.

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.

[craigh9]

Now Hillary declares herself in the "solutions business" - once again I ask anyone - ANYONE - to provide any solution she provided to anything. Any major initiative she has undertaken has been met with FAILURE - not solutions. I''''''''d much rather give the opportunity to someone with less experience that might be able to make a difference versus someone that has shown zero ability to accomplish anything in "her 35 years of experience".

[orloff3]

I currently live and work in Zurich, but pay a very close attention to the race back home.
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!

[sophielhu]

It''''s the one that says these clowns deserve a lifetime pension and lifetime healthcare benefits !
--------------------------
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

[b-easy63]

Here''''s a few more differences between Hilary and Obama

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?

[b-easy63]

correction:

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