Claire McCaskill has the soul of an auditor, as she has proven several times since arriving in the Senate. The latest example is that she is upset with the continued “bad habit” of Congressmen who use earmarks for pet projects as a way to earn votes–everything from a teapot museum to “$480 million dollars for an alternate jet engine the military doesn’t want – but could provide jobs in certain Congressional districts.”
McCaskill points out that:
“I am one of 12 U.S. senators who’ve not requested earmarks. One of only two Democrats.”
Earmarks increased tenfold while the Republicans controlled Congress, moving from about 1300 a year to 13,000 and amounting to $64 billion in 2005. The biggest earmark spenders are still Republicans, but the Democrats, including their leaders, have been greedy too.
Top Ten Senate Earmarkers*
Member Name
Earmark Total**
Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.
$773,598,178
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska
$501,882,500
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
$429,516,946
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii
$404,193,701
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
$383,167,294
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.
$335,717,010
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
$288,674,244
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
$247,162,574
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
$215,912,850
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
$177,793,375
Top Ten House Earmarkers*
Member Name
Earmark Total**
Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young, R-Fla.
$161,149,000
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.
$151,057,000
Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.
$136,845,000
Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
$96,405,146
Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind.
$90,924,000
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis.
$90,124,500
Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash.
$89,611,000
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
$87,096,000
Rep. Dave Hobson, R-Ohio
$79,801,500
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Miss.
$40,712,040
In fact, four big spenders, Republicans all, are currently under federal investigation for their spending practices: Don Young, Ted Stevens, Jerry Lewis, and Alan Mollohan. Before you stick your thumbs in your suspenders and start pontificating about those dirty Republicans, though, consider John Murtha:
Murtha’s earmarks include $2.4 million to a company that’s reportedly under federal investigation for diverting public funds.
Ouch. Maybe it’s a good thing he was denied the number two position in the House. On the other hand, Steny Hoyer did get the number two slot, and he’s also on the list, though not accused of anything illegal.
The only (sort of) bright spot is that congressmen used to be able to keep their earmarks anonymous, but the Democrats at least passed rules requiring earmarkers to own up to their boondoggles.
McCaskill hasn’t said what, if anything, she plans to do to remedy the situation–other than complain loudly. I recommend she revive Senator Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Awards.
Earmarks aren’t necessarily a bad thing. An earmark is nothing more than a provision in legislation to direct appropriations to a specific project. When it’s something like a $375 million “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, we call it a swindle; when it’s a new bridge across the Mississippi that allows for greater commerce between St. Louis and the Metro East, we praise it.
And forcing Congress to disclose the earmark’s sponsor might aid in ferreting out some of the cases where a congressman is improperly directing money to one of his or her own benefactors, but it won’t slow down the increase of earmarks. You don’t think one of those top earmarkers will wear that total like a badge of honor? “I brought home $300 million for my state!” will be their rallying cry all the way to victory at the ballot box.
Earmarks for research which largely colleges and universities have been been vital to offset the GOP’s flat funding of the National Institutes for Health (the greatest sources of funding for research) budgets in general and cuts to funding for “life” as opposed to “earth” sciences researach in particular since at least 03. Flat funding basically shifts the cost of continuing with ongoing research projects conducted by colleges and universities to the institution which causes the cost of attendance to go up. That is if the institution does not abandon the research effort. If the institution abandons the research then there is a negative impact on the quality of the educational experience provided. Federal money begets private money in research.
Bush prohibitted federal Agencies, which are under the executive branch, from using the increases made to their budgets which congress would have directed toward funding their ongoing research projects by means of separate mandatory spending legislation. In other words Bush stopped an end-run by Congress to prevent the administration’s cut and run in the war on cancer.
but rather that this is a pretty shameful way for the guardians of the public trust (and public tax-dollars) to put together a national budget. It effectively eviscerates spending controls and the ability to develop and adhere to meaningful priorities. You have got to respect her for saying what every congressperson seems to know but rarely acknowledges, since bringing the bacon home is a sure way to stay in office. And she is not only talking the good talk, but is acting on it as well–in spite of the risk to her constituents perception of her effectiveness in serving their interests.
but rather that this is a pretty shameful way for the guardians of the public trust (and public tax-dollars) to put together a national budget. It effectively eviscerates spending controls and the ability to develop and adhere to meaningful priorities. You have got to respect her for saying what every congressperson seems to know but rarely acknowledges, since bringing the bacon home is a sure way to stay in office. And she is not only talking the good talk, but is acting on it as well–in spite of the risk to her constituents perception of her effectiveness in serving their interests.