Earmarks Far from Extinction in Congress

Senate Democrats rolled out a bill Wednesday providing more than one trillion dollars to keep the government running.

It also includes a few other things such as $400,000 to commemorate the1959 visit of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to Iowa. The money would be used to build the Khrushchev in Iowa trail for bikers and hikers.

It's just one of $8 billion worth of earmarks in the bill, CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.

(Scroll down to watch a video of this report)
Taxpayers Fund a Merry Christmas for Pet Projects

For all the Republicans' scorn over earmarks, their fingerprints are all over the ones stuffed into the spending bill. Just last month, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, "on the issue of congressional earmarks, as the leader of my party in Senate, I have to lead first by example."

McConnell's earmarks include $650,000 in taxpayer money to advance genetic technologies, $1 million for a blood center building and $4 million for marijuana eradication.

Democrats are right in there with billions of dollars worth of their own earmarks despite their supposed disdain for them.

"I'm somebody who is big on eliminating earmarks in Congress," President Obama said last month.

All told, Congress added 6,600 earmarks worth $8 billion.

Many of the projects already get millions from the regular federal budget. These are extra sweeteners doled out by members, usually without competitive bidding, including:

• $2.4 million for the coal fuel alliance
• $350,000 for research on cool season legumes
• $165,000 for research on maples
• $307,000 for research on small fruit
• $413,000 for research on peanuts
• $208,000 for management of beavers
• $94,000 for management of blackbirds
• $277,000 for management potato pests
• $235,000 for management of noxious weeds
• $500,000 for oyster safety
• $247,000 for virus-free wine grapes
• $522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease

"Everybody who took a pledge and said, 'We're not doing earmarks going forward,' they didn't mean this year," said Ryan Alexander of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "They meant for next year."

In other words, Congress was for earmarks before they were against them. It's gotten so confusing that McConnell now says he opposes the whole spending bill, his own earmarks included.

"I'm going to vote against things that would arguably would benefit my state," McConnell said.

One big earmark worth mentioning comes from five Democrats: Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, Pennsylvania Rep. Mark Critz, Pennsylvania Rep. Chaka Fattah, Virginia Rep. Jim Moran and Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan. They're spending $10 million of taxpayer money to honor the memory of their controversial colleague, the late Rep. John Murtha.

"Who was the king of earmarks, according to many people, and a big defender of the earmark process, so it's ironic a memorial foundation in his name is getting funded through earmarks," Alexander said.

Members of Congress committed to the earmarks before last month's election, but in case there's nothing to keep them from stripping earmarks out of the spending bill, except themselves.

[northpark2]

I thought earmarks were allowed becasue the person representing the region would know how to appropriately spend them? I kind of like that idea, why not place some conditions on how the money is spent?

[Reality-Checker]

If you don't like earmarks, then say goodbye to the following earmarks:
1. Interstate Highway Network - without earmarks, no maintenence is possible.
2. Commercial Airports - without earmarks, there would be no maintenence, TSR, customs or immigration for international airports, or local air traffic controllers.
3. Levees - without earmarks, no maintenence would be possible for flood control projects.
4. Shipping Canals - without earmarks, coastal canals used for industry and utility would not have maintenence to keep traffic passable.
5. Domestic Crime-fighting Infrastructure - without earmarks, neither state, county, nor local police would receive federal dollars that upgrade computer networking infrastructure that rapidly identify dangerous criminals evading capture.
6. Stimulus Money - without earmarks, states operating in deficit would have had nothing to backfill their revenue voids and would have been forced to reduce services, cut jobs, and raise taxes.
7. Scientific Research - without earmarks, many colleges and university would lose their endowments that fund high technology development, and medical research.
8. Public Schools - without earmarks, many programs, such as the school lunch and breakfast subsidies would be underfunded, creating need to raise taxes on the local level. Computer networking would become obsolete and extend antiquated infrastructure to students and school faculty.
9. Public Utility - without earmarks, many cities and utilities would find theirself facing bankruptcy and unable to upgrade their water reclamation facilities. A federal subsidy for such a project can often amount to $1,000 per person in the population, if levied on a one-time basis.

These are heavy hitters in the federal earmark list that affect nearly 100% of the population. Eliminating earmarks simply regresses every major city backwards to PRE-1960 living standards. Criminals would just love to see earmarks disappear - since their success depends upon non-compliance to federal mandates.

[Tomohawk007]

Oops. You forgot mention anywhere in this article that 99% of the earmarks are from the dems. No wonder they were thrown OUT. Media bias at it's finest.

[starving1968-3]

Where do you get the 99% figure from?

Do you have a source, (please share if you do), or are you lying?

[babooph]

Are those Tea guys really believing their candidates will not sell them out to the lobbyists?

[omnibus66]

"I'm going to vote against things that would arguably would benefit my state," McConnell said.

Republicans have shown that they have no problem voting against things that help people. Unless, that is, it will help something close to their little black hearts, like rich people or big corporations. Then they will fight tooth and nail for passage.

[pasha128]

With the TEA PARTY candidates HIRING K STREET LOBBYISTS right and left this policy will not change in the new congress. Once again the TEA PARTY AND Republicans have duped the voters with lies exposed before the elected actually serve heir first day in office.

[jimbom121]

Yup, these idiots actually thought things would change...nope, just a power grab by the Repubs to a bunch of Rubes.

Its ironic that the only person who has done anything to stem the influence of lobbyists is Obama.

[Linda Raef-Sylvester]

I think we need a new law " All saleries are connected to spending. No raises for anyone when there is a deficit.

[nearl451]

Air Breathers just can't do without all that breathing....no matter how hard they try.

LOL.

[san850]

Disgusting! Wonder if the new "Weeper of the House" is gonna cry about this when he tries to defend it?

[Linda Raef-Sylvester]

He might cry but he has Never asked for an earmark. I'm thinking that he can cry a river and I'm fine with him.

[wildcat1338]

After KNOWING this bill will pass...I am not sure if there is ONE politician in Washington that has an honest bone to them. Neither Republican or Democrat is looking out for anyone but themselves. Look at this: The bill that rolled out Wednesday was at the amount of 1 TRILLION dollars...WITH these attatched "EARMARKS" added:
? $2.4 million for the coal fuel alliance
? $350,000 for research on cool season legumes
? $165,000 for research on maples
? $307,000 for research on small fruit
? $413,000 for research on peanuts
? $208,000 for management of beavers
? $94,000 for management of blackbirds
? $277,000 for management potato pests
? $235,000 for management of noxious weeds
? $500,000 for oyster safety
? $247,000 for virus-free wine grapes
? $522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease

I don't see ANYONE looking out for the "P E O P L E" of the UNITED STATES...Democrat or Republican. I think they have all gone to Hell and a handbag. Just imagine being able to write checks in the amount OUR government does...We would be put in jail if we did such a thing. How much more money can our country spend and have NOTHING in the account to cover it???? Who actually "OWNS" us now? China, maybe? When is OUR debt going to be CALLED IN and by WHO???