EARMARKS: Hillary in Top 10; Obama in bottom 25%; McCain rejected earmarks entirely

[mod mom]

In terms of securing earmarks, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) ranks among the top ten in the Senate ($340 million) while Barack Obama (D-IL) ranks in the bottom 25% of the Senate ($91 million). John McCain (R-AZ) has rejected earmarks entirely. Since becoming the majority party, Democrats are responsible for 57% of the $18.3 billion spent on earmarks. (Washington Post)

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/the_year_in_earmarks.php

MCCAIN CAN USE THIS AGAINST HRC SHOULD SHE BE THE DEM NOMINEE.

[Selatius]

1. If he wants to hurt HRC in the general election, no doubt he will use it against her. n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

17. ahaha you're so funny

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Thrill]

2. Oh boy. You know he is going to pound that

I see why they want to face Hillary

[Ravy]

3. And he will use it against Obama, too. nt

[Bread and Circus]

8. Yes and NO: for one, Obama has foresworn off all corporate earmarks.

for two, Obama has taken leadership initiative on transparency and cleaning up government.

He lays some claim to being a reformer on this, like McClain


McCain is here --> X

Obama is here -------------------> X































Clinton is way down and over here -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> X

[Ravy]

14. That makes no difference to McCain.

If Obama had *one* earmark, he would make it a big issue.

Has anyone done any research to if McCain did earmarks in the past, just not in the last year?

[Bread and Circus]

19. He WILL make it an issue. I've been warning about it for a long time but...

it's gotten lost in the the McClurkinization of GD P

[Lasher]

4. Boy, Ron Paul will be all over this. He hates earmarks.

Unless they're in his home district.

[frazzled]

5. There are earmarks and there are earmarks (and they account for only 1% of the budget)

Two issues here:

(1) one needs to examine which earmarks have been made (points here to Obama for making his transparent and available; I haven't looked to see if Clinton's are equally listed). Some earmarks are good and necessary (for rebuilding a hospital, say). Some earmarks are bridges to nowhere and political payback.

(2) I heard this statistic the other day--there's a lot of hooplah about earmarks, but they are really an infinitesimal part of the budget (and by extension, the budget problems). Is this one of those "look, over there!" issues, to take eyes off the amount we are spending on such things as ... THE WAR?

I would not judge either candidate on these raw statistics.

[Egnever]

7. Sane response

[enough already]

10. It's about transparency, not the $ amount

These earmarks are things that are typically put into bills in a sleazy way through the back door. If they are for such wonderful, necessary things as politicians on both sides say, then why not be completely transparent and put them in up front where everyone can see them and debate them if necessary? Earmarks are shitty politics, or at least they were when we were running to oust the pukes from Congress last cycle. I guess our guys forgot once they got into power. McCain will rightly beat the hell out of us on this one.

[Bread and Circus]

13. Actually the problem is bigger than that because a lot of earmarking is

to private corporations, which in turn gives money back to the candidate. You rub my back I rub yours kind of thing. It's a quid pro quo system that is corrupt, to be frank.

The 3 biggest parts of the federal budget are defense, SS, and Medicare. Those 3 alone make up 80% of the budget. So, taking those 2 out you will get to the "discretionary" part of the budget (about 18%), and earmarks make up a significant part of that. 1/18 is greater than 5% of discretionary spending.



Also, as a taxpayer and business person I pay well over $50,000 in taxes a year to the federal government. I really don't like the idea of ANY of that money being earmarked for pet corporate projects so politicians can curry favor w/ certain corporate backers.

I'm on McCain and Obama on this one and Obama needs to go even further.

[formernaderite]

15. bingo...

exactly...these are usually ways of repaying the donors.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. Hillary knows how to work for her consituents...gets the business done good!

[UALRBSofL]

12. Earmarks are very important to the constituents of a state

Repugs hate it because they think it's like welfare, giving money away. Now I will say some earmarks are stupid but not all. :)

[enid602]

9. earmarks

Earmarks were very important; that was the only way you could get Bush's legislation to pass.

[Me.]

11. K & R

Keep all the great info coming

[Onlooker]

16. Are we now against earmarks?

They're perfectly defensible when you look at the specific issues they're trying to address.

[zbdent]

18. and yet McCain shamelessly rubber-stamped everything Bush wanted ...

there's a reason why the Repugniconvicts needed to be afraid of the hype about "voting was along party lines" ... they were the ones who gave the US this economic mess ...

[bigtree]

20. I thought the issue of earmarks was a Bush objection, not a Democratic one

[jackson_dem]

21. Perverse argument: nominate Obama because he is not effective like Hillary!

He is good at renaming post office, though! :rofl: