When you hear Claire McCaskill strutting her deficit cutting stuff by boasting about how she opposes earmarks, you are entitled to roll your eyes. Earmarks amount to less than 2% of the budget and the deficit would hardly know it if they said bye-bye tomorrow.  

There is, however,  a serious problem with earmarks: influence peddling. They provide a very useful tool for corrupt politicians. The reason I’m bringing this topic up now is this little nugget that I came across while scanning the KC Star’s Prime Buzz:  

We’re told Roy Blunt  has worked hard to get support from some leaders in Kansas City’s African-American community, particularly from members worried about Robin Carnahan’s opposition to earmarks, which are used to help projects in the inner city.

And we’re told that work has or will bear fruit, with endorsements from some members of the community, including we’re told, Rev. Modest Miles.

I’ve got no problems with the Rev. John Modest Miles. I am sure that he just wants to do the best for his community. He and any other member of the Kansas City African-American community have every right to decide that Roy Blunt’s positions on earmarks suit them more than Robin Carnahan’s.

But if Blunt, who is known for inserting favors for campaign donors into unrelated legislation, goes after Rev. Miles’ endorsement while waving his earmark wand, doesn’t it create just a little stench? We need to remember that this is the same Roy Blunt about whom former New York Times columnist Thomas Edsall wrote that he “embodies the insidious, half-legal corruption that has permeated the G.O.P. majority since 1995.”

* Last paragraph edited slightly.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability (August 11, 2010)

The first part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:

….Question: Hi, Senator McCaskill. Thanks so much for coming out today. I was just wondering, with oil spill wreaking havoc in the Gulf, what do you propose to do to make sure that a disaster like this never happens to us again?

Senator Claire McCaskill Um, there will be a, um, the question was, uh, with the oil that has spilled into the Gulf, what are you gonna do to make sure that a disaster like the BP disaster never happens again? Um, you, I see your t-shirt. You probably aren’t gonna like this answer, some parts of it. Uh, we will not be considering a bill this year to place a price on carbon. And these ladies in the green t-shirt are almost as unhappy with me as [redacted] in that I have disappointed them because I refuse to be supportive of a, a price on carbon. I’ve, I’ve been, I have been, um, reluctant to support a price on carbon, um, for a cap and trade bill. On the other hand there is gonna be an energy bill that we will debate when we get back in September that will do three things. The first is accountability for BP, making sure that there’s not an artificial lid on what they would be responsible for in terms of the clean up. My job is to make sure taxpayers do not pay for their mistake. And so we want to make sure we remove the lid so BP has no artificial limit on what they would be required to pay to clean up the Gulf, to make those business whole, to make sure the families down there have not suffered because of their carelessness and negligence. Uh, it does some other things, like making sure that the companies that are doing offshore drilling have relief wells before they begin. Um, this problem was, it was never a relief well required. Truth be known, the oversight of oil and gas drilling in this country kinda was in a coma. Uh, and this goes for both administrations. They had not really been doing an aggressive job. And there has been a complete housecleaning over at that, in that regulatory area in the Department of Interior. So, we’ll be happy to get you all, you probably have it, as active as you are, you may have all the details of what’s in that bill as it relates to oils company accountability for negligence in offshore drilling that’s in the bill. The other thing that’s in the bill is a incentive to convert eighteen wheelers from, uh, diesel to natural gas. And the final part of it is a homestar provision which provides incentives for homeowners to weatherize their homes. Allow them to do things that will make their homes more efficient and spend less on their utility bills which is a win-win, uh, in terms of carbon emissions and also win-win, obviously, for homeowners in their electricity costs. Those are the three things that will be in the energy bill that we will debate before the end of the year. But I do not believe that the price on carbon will be coming up.

Question: Thanks for your time.

Senator McCaskill: Thank you.

[….]

…Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] Are you, as you cut spending in education, what will you do with No Child Left Behind provisions?

Um, education traditionally in this country has been a state and local responsibility. About forty years ago the federal government began helping with state and local education. And then during the Bush administration passed probably the most seeping requirements from Washington [inaudible crosstalk] as relates to No Child Left Behind.

[inaudible crosstalk] Sir, we’re not gonna do this, we really aren’t. [inaudible crosstalk] We’re not gonna debate the, we’re not here to debate. [inaudible crosstalk] I’m here to answer people’s questions. [inaudible crosstalk] And I don’t want to be rude to you. [voice: “That was, that was Carter, was it not?”] That, actually, the first funding for local education was not under Carter, it was before Carter. But I’m not here to try to say it was a D or an R, sir, I’m not here, I’m trying just to answer the woman’s question. [inaudible crosstalk] It is not gonna be fair if you keep interrupting.  [inaudible crosstalk] No Child Left Behind was a mandate from Washington that frankly I think that just about everybody I’ve talked to in the education community, parents, teachers, superintendents don’t like, uh, teaching to a test, uh, an arbitrary number that people have to reach. So, it will not be authorized as it is.

The other thing that’s beginning to happen is I don’t think there’ll be as much money coming from Washington for state and local education. Now keep in mind, um, how many of you are aware that, um, there was eight hundred million dollars cut out of the state budget, a lot of, some of which is going to education in terms of education cuts? Okay. Keep in mind that had the stimulus not been at the state level that figure would have been three point two billion that would have been cut. They have been balancing the budget for the last two years with the stimulus money that we sent from Washington. Because we were clearly not excited about the idea of a whole lot of teachers and other public sector jobs being laid off, especially the teachers. There is another bit of help that’s coming if the House votes for it today. I didn’t vote for it the first time ’cause it wasn’t fully paid for, but we voted on it last week and it was fully paid for. And that will bring another four hundred million to help, to, to try to keep teachers from being laid off in Missouri at the state and local level. But this is a warning. For all of the federal programs, whether it’s CDDG, whether it’s state and local education, all of that, I think over the next twenty years there will be less and less money coming out of Washington and more and more reliance will have to come from the state and local governments. Because we cannot continue on the trajectory we’ve been on for the last twenty or thirty years in terms of the increase in spending for functions that were originally designed and traditionally have been borne by the states and local governments. [inaudible crosstalk]

Absolutely. And that’s the problem. No Child Left Behind was a federal mandate that didn’t have a lot of money with it, that frankly, I mean I bet if I asked everybody in here who your favorite teacher was you can remember. Right? And my favorite teacher that I remember, that really motivated me, they did it with imagination. They did it by being creative in the classroom. And the people who were the best teachers go into it because they want to be creative in the classroom. And the problem is [inaudible] No Child Left Behind was squeezing that creativity right out of the classrooms and forcing everyone just to teach to a test. That’s not how we’re going to compete globally in terms of bringing up our education standards. So, there is a very, very [applause] wide support for doing away with the way, and what we should be doing is measuring progress, not doing apples to oranges. Um, making sure that kids are making progress and that we are and that [inaudible] give credit that we do have a President who, and you’re probably a teacher.  Are you a teacher?  Yeah, superintendent. Yeah, you know, we have somebody who’s beginning to take on some of the teachers unions as it relates to performance pay, um, you know, not ninety percent of the teachers, a few of the teachers may not be as good as the others. And we’v
e been very bad in the education system in terms of weeding them out. And we need to do better at that. I mean the vast majority are wonderful, but the ones that aren’t great, uh, we need to have a way we can not keep them in the classroom, um, because that’s really gypping our kids.

So, next question.

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] Have you read the entire O, Obamacare bill?

Yes, I have.  [voice: “Two thousand nine hundred pages.”] I have. In fact, I’ve read parts of it twice. [voice: “Really?”] Yes, I have.  [inaudible crosstalk] And I read the financial reg bill, too. In fact, I’m co-sponsoring with Tom Coburn in the Senate, Dr. Tom Coburn, a bil, um, that will require all of the bills before we can vote on anything to be on the Internet for a minimum of seventy-two hours. [inaudible crosstalk] [inaudible] On the health care bill… [inaudible crosstalk] Okay. Section nine zero zero six in the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act amends section three forty-one of the Internal Revenue Code to require businesses to send Form 1099 to each vendor which they buy goods valued at more than six hundred dollars annually. [reading the question] How will health, health care be improved by this requirement?

Well, it was an attempt, which I disagree with, by the way, and there is a move to change this and I will make a prediction that will be removed by the end of the year ’cause there is wide support to remove it. It was put in there to help collect taxes that were owed. It wasn’t put in there to increase taxes, frankly, people are supposed to have taxes owed when they get reimbursed on business expenses over that amount. [inaudible crosstalk] Yeah. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, um, I hope you’re not surprised by them. Um, you know, the bill is public. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, and this is, you know, as I’ve said many, many times, the bill is not perfect, obviously. The bill is gonna need changes and tweaks along the way, it’s one of the reasons why all the provisions don’t go in all at once. They, they are, they are gradually gone in. I worry that some small businesses don’t know that they can get thirty-five percent of their health care premiums back as a tax credit this year. I’m worried that they don’t know that. I’m worried they don’t know that they get fifty percent of it back the following year. So, there’s both good news and bad news in this bill that people may not be aware of. As time goes on I hope they become more aware. This is something that I think is gonna cause more confusion than it is good. It is technically an effort to collect taxes that are owed. But the amount of paperwork that it’s gonna generate doesn’t make sense to me for the amount of taxes that we’re trying to, to collect. You know, all of us want anybody to pay the taxes they owe. I mean, I bet you most of you in this room pay your taxes like clockwork, but there’s a whole bunch of people out there that cheat. [inaudible crosstalk] And so part of this is trying to make sure everybody pays what is owed. [voice: “How about Timothy Geithner…he owed a whole bunch of back taxes? He still got nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury. How do we get by with people like that?”] Well, he paid all those before he was nominated. You’re right, he made mistakes. [voice: “There was six people in the Obama administration who were tax cheats. And there…”] There were definitely some people that were nominated who made mistakes on their taxes…  [inaudible crosstalk] have been repaid. [inaudible] I’m sure if you went through every administration you would find some of those. And it’s unfortunate. And I, I hope people don’t make mistakes on their taxes, but it is a problem that people make mistakes and some people intentionally make mistakes. [inaudible crosstalk]

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] What impact will Proposition C have on the health care initiative nationwide, and two, financially on the State of Missouri, mainly because of the long court battle.

I don’t know that there’ll be long court battle on this. Um, I, I don’t think there will. And it is, uh, basically what the referendum it doesn’t probably have much legal impact. Um, it was, uh, I think, largely political. Um, but, and I don’t think that it will have a huge amount of impact on what actually happens as it relates to the changes in health care that will begin to occur. I mean, people are still gonna get their checks in Missouri this year to help fill in the donut hole. The small business in Missouri will still get their tax credits this year if they’re paying for health insurance. They’ll get it next year. There’ll be a bigger check to help fill in with the donut hole next year. By the way, all that’s being paid for by the pharmaceutical companies who are paying back the government some of the excess profits we gave them on that Medicare D. They’re going to be paying the federal government back three and a half billion dollars next year alone to help pay for some of these things because we bucked them up a lot of excess profits of taxpayer money on Medicare D.

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] Promoting fiscal responsibility, why pass another bill to cap spending? Several have passed in the past fifty years and none have been adhered to.

Well, actually, that’s not true. Um, there was a cap on spending during the nineties and there was also Paygo. And if you remember during the nineties we actually balanced the budget. [inaudible crosstalk] You know what happened? They let it expire. [inaudible crosstalk] Because the people who voted for it [inaudible crosstalk] the [inaudible crosstalk] I, you know that’s a really good question. I wasn’t there. If I would have been there I would have said, this is a bad idea to let this expire [inaudible crosstalk] ever. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, I, I’m trying to get one passed that’s good for three years. If I said it’s forever I don’t know I could get it passed. But I’m trying, I’m trying, but you keep in mind when these things expired. They had both Paygo and a cap on spending in the nineties and we balanced the budget. And then in the two thousands, in the two thousands they let ’em go. And they took earmarking to a new art form and they never vetoed any spending and they took spending out of control. I don’t know why because we actually had a surplus at the beginning of the Bush administration. [inaudible crosstalk] Boy, me, too. [inaudible crosstalk] I’m one of two Democrats that do not take earmarks in the entire Senate. One of two. [applause] And, um, and I’ll tell you what you ought to watch for. Watch for somebody who’s runnin’ who says they won’t take earmarks this year, but they won’t promise anything about next year. Now that’s insulting. That’s insulting to voters that someone would actually say, you know, in an election year I’m not gonna take earmarks, but I’m not making any promises beyond the election year. Watch out for that. Watch out for that. Um, you can’t, either earmarks are a wonderful thing and you ought to fight for ’em and arm wrestle for ’em and get all of ’em you can, or they’re a bad thing and you shouldn’t do it at all. This is something you can’t be half pregnant on. You’ve got to either decide that you think it’s a good way to pay the taxpayer money or it’s a bad way. I think it’s a ridiculous way to spend taxpayer money because it’s not based on merit. I’m not saying there aren’t meritorious projects that have been funded. I’m sure they’re things within the crow flies ten miles from here, I know things at Whiteman [AFB] that paid for with earmarks that have been helpful to the community. Some of the projects that have been funded are good. But it’s the process by which they’re funded. Because you know how you get to decide how much money you get? I don’t either. It’s some kind of deal that if you’re like on a certain committee you get more. If you’re more senior you get more. If you’re an appropriator you get a lot more. If you’re not on the Appropriations you don’t get as much. If you’re in political trouble you get mo
re. This notion that somehow you’re gonna have people at home vote for you if you’re in trouble and not gonna get elected if you get more earmarks. The way in which the decisions are made on how the earmarks are decided are fundamentally wrong with public money. We should only spend money on projects that have competed on their merit, not on who you know. And the vast majority of earmarks that occur have lobbyists attached to ’em. The vast majority. [inaudible crosstalk] [laughter] Well, they’re not taking personal money, they’re not taking personal money. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, I would just say [inaudible crosstalk] regardless of whether, I mean, in every bushel basket there is a bad apple. In every bushel basket. But I will tell you that the vast majority of the people in Washington, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, are honest people. They’re honest people. They’re not feathering their own nest. I think they’re doing things they shouldn’t be doing in the way they spend the public money, but the vast majority of, I’m not saying they’re all perfect, we’ve go, I’m sure they’re bad apples there, too, but, um, most of my colleagues that are Republican are trustworthy and most of my colleagues that are Democrats are trustworthy in terms of being politically corrupt or graft. [applause]…

Transcript(s) of the remainder of the question and answer session will follow in subsequent posts.

A video from Robin Carnahan‘s (D) campaign with more on Roy Blunt’s (r-lobbyists) inside the beltway record:

Roy Blunt: Not all earmarks are bad. But all earmarks deserve to be scrutinized and have to be justified.

[But Congressman Blunt refuses to reveal earmarks he’s tried to push through Congress][Gannett News Service, 5/3/07]

[Congressman Blunt: the ‘prodigious porkmeister’

Providence Journal, 2/6/06]

[Headline: Blunt Takes Insider Role to New Heights

Kansas City Star, 9/29/05]

[Pursuing a Fast Track to Party Leadership; Blunt Builds Network, Delivers Votes]

[Washington Post, 10/01/05]

[Watchdog Group CREW Identifies Congressman Blunt as one of the most “crooked candidates” seeking higher office]

[www.CitizensforEthics.org, 7/20/2010]

Roy Blunt: Not all earmarks are bad. But all earmarks deserve to be scrutinized and have to be justified.

[Seven-Fold Increase in Earmarks

On Congressman Blunt’s Watch]

[The Blunt Debt (in trillions)]

[Congressman Blunt refuses to disclose his earmark requests

What is Congressman Blunt Hiding?]

[Waste

Corruption

Sticking it to the Middle Class]

[Congressman Blunt

The Very Worst of Washington]

And besides, for that kind of money, the tux should fit better.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) posted a link via Twitter to a video of remarks she made on the floor of the Senate critical of the earmarking process:

I think this does a decent job explaining some of the problems with earmark process. http://bit.ly/9tsro about 2 hours ago from web

The date on the video is September 23, 2009.

….The amendment that I’ll be offering speaks to what I see as a very fundamentally flawed process in our appropriations in Congress. I am, uh, not in the majority in this body as it relates to the subject of earmarks. I realize that I am, um, one of very few in my party and a few more, but not a whole lot, on the other side of the aisle that don’t participate in the earmarking process. My amendment is calling into attention, I hope, how this process is flawed. And why we need to change the process.

There are two, there are many problems with the process, but two of ’em I’m gonna speak briefly about today. One is, the process is fundamentally unfair. Um, it’s, it’s rather mysterious, uh, how much money gets set aside for earmarks and who does it and where it happens. It’s even more mysterious as to how the decision is made as to how the earmarks are distributed among the members. Uh, I would point out that in looking at the appropriations bills that we’ve handled so far it’s very clear that the process is heavily weighted towards the members that serve as appropriators. I get that. Um, that’s part of the culture that has grown up around earmarking. That is, is if you’re an appropriator you’re entitled to get more. I’m not sure that’s a good way to spend public money. But I think it’s important to point out that that is the process. Um, fifty percent of the earmarks in this bill, of all the earmarks in this bill, are going to the members of the committee. Last week it was even more egregious. I don’t think most members realize that when we voted on the Transportation, uh, the T-HUD bill last week, the Transportation the Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill last week, in the transportation part of the bill there was one point six billion in earmarks. Over fifty percent of that money went to four members, four states. So, out of fifty states four states got more than half of all the money. Well when I tell that to people in Missouri they go, “Huh, how does that happen? How can that happen?” And I frankly don’t have a very good answer for ’em.

The other par…, problem I’d like to call to the attention of my colleagues today is not just the process as it relates to how earmarks are distributed, but what we, where these earmarks come from. This money is not growing on a secret tree somewhere that we’re harvesting. Uh, it is, they’re coming out of programs. They’re coming out of budgets. And one of the things that I’ve found most troubling is that many of these earmarks are coming out of competitive grant programs or formula grant programs. ….

….Taking money out of a formula fund to earmark takes it from a predictable process based on merit to a very unpredictable process based on who ya are. The same thing with competitive grant programs.

The amendment that I will offer, uh, basically wipes out the earmarks in one of these competitive grant programs. The program I’m referring to is a great program. It’s called “Save America’s Treasures”.

Half of the money this year will be earmarked. Leaving only ten million for a competitive program. So if your state doesn’t get an earmark, either in the House or in the Senate, in the bill then the chances of your state getting any money out of this program have been cut in half. It’s only ten million dollars for the whole country for these grants which are to restore America’s treasures, historic treasures, across the country. That, that, that’s a problem.

The hijacking of public money for earmarking from the competitive grant bus is going on everywhere. Um, and let me give you another couple of examples. Last week when we did the Transportation Housing Urban Development appropriation there were two good examples. They are, uh, programs that began to provide competition to valued programs across the country. The first one, is the Neighborhood Initiative. And that is at, at HUD, the Housing and Urban Development department. In nineteen ninety-eight Congress created this program.

There were no earmarks in the program at all in nineteen ninety-nine. None. After Congress created the program. So, beginning in two thousand and one, however, every dime in this program, under the Neighborhood Initiatives Program, has gone to earmarks. Once again, a competitive merit process morphs over into a completely earmarked process.

I just think that compet…, competition is a good thing. And this isn’t about a bureaucrat somewhere sprinkling fairy dust and supplementing their judgment for the judgment of Congress. In fact the examples that I have given are programs that were designed to be competitive, and in two of the three instances, they were designed to be competitive by Congress itself. And then somehow they have morphed over into a pecking order of priorities based on someone’s seniority or the committee they serve on or even if they’re in some political trouble. It seems like to me a goofy way to spend money, especially the public’s money….

“…I just think that compet…, competition is a good thing….”

It’d be really nice if that also applied to health care reform, don’t you think?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) is having a very busy Twitter day. A little bit of face time with President Obama and a floor speech bashing republicans over their earmark hypocrisy:

Giving speech on floor around 2:15sh E Time to call out R leadership for saying one thing & doing another.Re:wasteful spending & earmrks.about 6 hours ago from web

Video excerpts from Claire McCaskill’s floor speech:

“…No fewer than seventeen different Republican senators stood up, and absolutely, with righteous indignation, talked about the pet projects in the stimulus bill. And guess what? Every single one of them has earmarks in this bill….Every single one of them. Every single one of these people rejected the stimulus that was one of the largest tax cuts in American history and had no earmarks because supposedly they were so upset about wasteful spending. Those very same senators have earmarks in this bill like ‘The Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference’, ‘Beaver Managment’, parking lots – all brought to you by the very same people that called out wasteful spending in the President’s economic recovery bill…”

Yep. It’s been a busy day for the junior senator from Missouri.

Again, we have been assured by Brett Penrose that no Alaskan moose were injured in the production of this ‘toon.

Like his buddy George W. Bush, John McCain believes that the economy is essentially good, and that all those of who are hurting just need to suck it up just like he did over the summer, when his campaign was flailing. The DNC does a good job of highlighting this disconnect in their newest ad:

And even leading Missouri Pepublicans object to the slender policy fixes that McCain actually has.

Look at Jo Ann Emerson’s piece in the SE Missourian on April 13th, for example. McCain’s big bugaboo is government spending, especially earmarks. (McCain has vowed to veto every bill with earmarks.) Yet as Emerson points out, earmarks are necessary for vital infrastructure, like roads and ports, all over the country.

Members of Congress, on the other hand, can be good advocates for the districts they represent. If not for our ability to check and balance the executive branch by raising local issues, life would be very different in rural America. In the 8th District, for example, the only way to ensure the roads we need get built is to insert an earmark – a guarantee the money will be spent for its intended purpose. Four-lane construction of U.S. 60 depends on earmarks for steel and concrete. OMB would never call this project a priority, and without federal funds it never would have happened.

Emerson also points out that the US Constitution gives Congress the power to appropriate funds. It’s good to see a (Republican!) member of Congress siding with Congress against the executive branch for a change. I hope she’s not just rehearsing for next January, when the rest of the Republican caucus will suddenly discover oversight.

I’ll add that even given the overly generous definition of earmarks McCain uses to buttress his argument, there are only $52 billion in congressional earmarks, hardly enough to offset the current budget deficit AND McCain’s proposed tax cuts for the wealthy. That definition of earmarks also includes American aid to Israel and funds for military housing. Can anyone see a McCain administration cutting funds for either of these items? Straight talk indeed.

More below the fold.

I don’t often agree with Kit Bond, but he’s correct about McCain’s flaky gas tax holiday. McCain proposed that we halt the 18.4 cents federal tax on each gallon of gas for the entire summer. But Bond exclaims, “I don’t see how cutting funds to fix bad roads and fight congestion helps families.” The lost tax revenue would deprive the federal highway fund of $8.5 billion. The lowered price would also spur demand for gas, which would only bring the price up even more over the long haul. Maybe McCain thinks that the traffic jams and crumbling roads will dampen demand. He’ll eventually fill us in with some straight talk, I suppose.

What we really need is a greater investment in alternate sources of energy and a larger commitment to conservation. These will actually create jobs, unlike the pennies McCain is throwing at the poor.

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.