Both sides of the earmark debate are engaging in the usual shenanigans that define Washington. And in terms of political shenanigans, hypocrisy is a repeat offender.
Obama Administration: We'll Get to That Later
Appearing on weekend news programming, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag reiterated the Obama administration's position that the President will try to curb earmarks after the omnibus has passed. The White House has seized upon the fact that the bill was negotiated late last year in order to justify its failure to challenge the nearly 9000 earmarks it contains.
Sorry guys, but this one does not pass the laugh test. The bill was structured last year, but Obama, who campaigned on earmark reform (last year), also co-sponsored a $7.7 million earmark while he was still Senator (last year). Thus, even though he campaigned against earmarks, Obama still sponsored one worth millions of dollars. Now that he is President, however, Obama has deleted his name from the list of sponsors. The spending item remains in the budget. [Note: The Obama administration denies that the spending provision is an earmark. Please read the Congressional Quarterly article to see this argument dissected.]
Also, pork spending looks pretty bad when the government is telling people to tighten their belts, job losses and home foreclosures are soaring, and banks have received a trillion dollars in public assistance (also known as "welfare"). It seems that Congress cannot live up to the demands it makes of others.
Republicans: Do As We Say Not As We Do
Although Republicans sponsor 6 of the 10 largest earmarks in the bill and about 40 percent of the total number, the GOP has very loudly opposed the handouts. John McCain has vehemently contested earmarks and wants legislative or executive action on the subject. To his credit, however, McCain has not sponsored an earmark.
But some Republicans were "for eamarks before they were against them." Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, for example, voted for a failed amendment to the omnibus bill that would have deleted all of the earmarks -- including the $243 million in earmarks she sponsored.
Another Republican, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, bashed the earmark-laden omnibus bill and Obama's proposed budget during a Sunday interview on Fox News. Kyl, however, stumbled when Fox's Chris Wallace asked him to respond to data showing that he sponsored $118 million in earmarks.
Even some of the most ardent fiscal conservatives have sponsored earmarks. Texas Representative Ron Paul recently accused fellow Republicans of being "born-again budget conservatives" for condemning Obama's deficit spending, while having previously voted for Bush's deficit-enhancing budgets. Given Paul's zeal for "limited government," it is not surprising that he denounced and voted against the omnibus bill." It is surprising, however, that he voted against the 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million that he sponsored.
Earmarks, Congressional Power and Transparency
Because Congress has the constitutional power to tax and spend, it can certainly pass earmarks. The problem with earmarks, however, is that the process behind them lacks transparency. Often, no sponsor is listed, and it appears that sponsors can remove their names (as Obama recently did). Congress does not subject these spending items to debate, and it probably never looks to see whether the earmarks present a conflict of interest.
For these reasons, Obama correctly challenged earmarks as a candidate. His focus on earmarks led to thunderous criticism over Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere," which Democrats used to portray Sarah Palin as a fiscal hypocrite. After all of last year's political posturing, postponing the issue until after the ominibus bill passes will only invite Republican criticism.
What Is Really Going on Here?
Truthfully, both parties love earmarks. They help candidates "win points" back home, and can serve as the "quid pro quo" to push through difficult legislation and avoid budget battles. Also, in the absence of oversight by Congress, unelected members of the executive agencies would have much more control over the direction of spending. For these reasons, most members of both parties strongly support earmarks. So, to a great extent, the current debate over earmarks is simply a smokescreen to hide the parties' political gaming.
Republicans are using the earmark controversy to "shame" Obama for abandoning his anti-earmark campaign rhetoric and to portray him and the Democrats as "big spenders" and as fiscally reckless. They also want to stretch out to budgeting process in order to gain political concessions, to test their political power, and to undermine the perceived effectiveness of the President.
Obama campaigned on earmark reform in order to construct his ubiquitous "change" narrative. Now that the campaign is over, he must deal with reality and specifics. He and most Democrats oppose renegotiation of the budget because the longer it remains unpassed, the greater the risk of political embarrassment and the need to give more concessions to the Republicans. A delay in passage of the bill could cause a governmental "shutdown" (which is more symbolic than anything else) and would reveal vulnerability among Democrats, despite their electoral sweep.
Both parties are simply playing games on the issue. And as is often the case, these games have completely overshadowed honest discussions over the substantive content of the bill and the pros and cons of earmark reform. Washington is changing nonetheless: it was 70 degrees over the weekend. Spring has arrived!
PS: Voters also must think about their own hypocrisy. They want politicians to denounce earmarks -- but clearly, they also want earmarks and re-elect politicians who "bring home the bacon."
Showing posts with label earmarks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label earmarks. Show all posts
Monday, March 9, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Iowans: Pig-Odor Project Is Not Pork
A $1.7 million earmark to control pig odor in Iowa has provoked much laughter. But many Iowans say that the pig project is not pork. Pigs outnumber people 3-1 in Iowa, and that makes for a rather putrid environment:
In Iowa, where the 20 million hogs easily outnumber the 3 million people, the rotten-egg-and-ammonia smell of hog waste often wafts into homes, landing like a punch to the chest.
"Once, we couldn't go outside for a week," said Karen Forbes, who lives near a hog feedlot outside Lorimor. "It burned your eyes. You couldn't breathe. You had to take a deep breath and run for your garage. It was horrid."
She recalls a citywide garage sale held in the town of 420 a couple of years ago that no one attended because of the stink that day.
Suddenly "This Year's Business": Senate Republicans Force Delay in Vote on Spending Bill
The Senate has delayed voting on a spending measure that would fund operation of the government until September. The measure has provoked criticism because it contains nearly 9,000 earmarks.
President Obama was a vocal opponent of earmarks during his presidential campaign. In response to demands that the president veto the legislation or ask Congress to remove the earmarks, officials from the Obama administration said that the budget was "last year's business" and that the country needed to "move on." Apparently, the proposed measure has suddenly become this year's business.
According to the Associated Press:
President Obama was a vocal opponent of earmarks during his presidential campaign. In response to demands that the president veto the legislation or ask Congress to remove the earmarks, officials from the Obama administration said that the budget was "last year's business" and that the country needed to "move on." Apparently, the proposed measure has suddenly become this year's business.
According to the Associated Press:
Senate Republicans, demanding the right to try to change a huge spending bill, forced Democrats on Thursday night to put off a final vote on the measure until next week. The surprise development will force Congress to pass a stopgap funding bill to avoid a partial shutdown of the government.Two prominent Democratic Senators -- Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold -- also oppose the measure due to the earmarks. They have called upon Obama to veto it if it passes.
Republicans have blasted the $410 billion measure as too costly. But the reason for GOP unity in advance of a key procedural vote was that Democrats had not allowed them enough opportunities to offer amendments.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., canceled the vote, saying he was one vote short of the 60 needed to close debate and free the bill for President Barack Obama's signature.
Democrats and their allies control 58 seats, though at least a handful of Democrats oppose the measure over its cost or changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba. That meant Democrats needed five or six Republican votes to advance the bill.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Silly Me: Opposition to Earmarks Is "Last Year's Business"
Well, I guess I need to learn the importance of "living in the now." Recently, I joined a chorus of people who criticized the inclusion of billions of dollars of earmarks in the proposed budget. Although politicians from both parties condemned earmarks during the 2008 election, politicians from both parties have fallen off the wagon and inserted nearly 9000 earmarks in the pending budget.
Today, the Obama administration responded to criticism surrounding the earmarks and to demands that he veto the budget unless Congress deletes them. Peter Orszag, the White House Budget Director says that the President will not cause a standoff over earmarks because the budget needs to get through Congress quickly: “This is last year’s business . . . We just need to move on.” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (who sponsored several earmarks in the proposed budget) echoed Orszag's statement that the earmark-laden budget is "last year's" issue.
Even though he dismissed an invitation to squabble over "old" matters, Orszag indicated that the issue of earmarks could come up again (presumably once Congress has already passed the budget):
Today, the Obama administration responded to criticism surrounding the earmarks and to demands that he veto the budget unless Congress deletes them. Peter Orszag, the White House Budget Director says that the President will not cause a standoff over earmarks because the budget needs to get through Congress quickly: “This is last year’s business . . . We just need to move on.” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (who sponsored several earmarks in the proposed budget) echoed Orszag's statement that the earmark-laden budget is "last year's" issue.
Even though he dismissed an invitation to squabble over "old" matters, Orszag indicated that the issue of earmarks could come up again (presumably once Congress has already passed the budget):
"We're going to be working with the Congress. We want to make sure that earmarks are reduced, and they're also transparent. We're going to work with the Congress on a set of reforms to achieve those . . . ."O.k., then: Next issue!
No Kicking and Screaming Yet. . .
[Another recent post: Silly Me: Opposition to Earmarks Is "Last Year's Business" ]
Washington has its traditions just like any other city. But unlike other places, Washington is the home of the second-oldest profession: politics. This makes the city impervious to demands for change -- especially change that strikes at the core of its deal-based political culture. And while the 2008 election promised "change" at all levels, signs of "business as usual" remain abundant.
Mo' Money, Mo' Problems!
Earmarks
Last week, the House passed an omnibus budget that contains billions of dollars in earmarks proposed by lawmakers in both parties. Several members of the Obama administration, including Obama himself, have sponsored earmarks which appear in the proposed budget.
During his presidential campaign, however, Obama routinely condemned earmarks. His opposition to earmarks led to the media's obsession with Alaska's so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," which Democrats said proved that Sarah Palin engaged in double-talk on fiscal conservatism. Recently, after fiscal watchdogs began publicizing the volume of earmarks in the proposed budget, Obama scrubbed his name from a multi-million dollar earmark that previously designated him as a co-sponsor. The earmarks, however, remain in the bill. Members of Obama's staff have defended the inclusion of earmarks in the budget on the grounds that the concern over pork spending was "last year's business."
Lobbyists
Lobbyists are another staple of Washington's political culture. Obama campaigned on a pronounced anti-lobbying theme, and after he was elected, he immediately implemented rules that prohibit former lobbyists who join the government from shaping policy on issues related to their previous work. But Obama immediately ignored his own rules in order to appoint William Lynn as Assistant Secretary of Defense.
He was also presumably set to waive the rule (or at least ignore the spirit behind it) for Tom Daschle, his original pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Although Daschle ultimately withdrew from consideration over controversy surrounding unpaid taxes, some critics also complained that he had earned millions of dollars representing and providing advice to insurance companies and that he was a trustee of the Mayo Clinic. Daschle, however, was not formally registered as a "lobbyist."
In addition, as a campaigner, Obama promised transparency and accountability on health care reform, but lobbyists for insurance companies and other groups have held private meetings with Senator Ted Kennedy to discuss the issue before the public debates. According to the L.A. Times:
Improving "Our" Image in the World
Obama's supporters promised that his election would repair the image of the United States in the world community, which, they contend, Bush's militaristic practices and abusive antiterriorism policies severely damaged. A combination of legal strategy, politics and policy considerations, however, have caused Obama to retain many of the same Bush-era practices or legal positions that liberals believe injured the country' reputation. These policies include rendition, blanket usage of the state secrets privilege, the openness to "harsh" interrogation methods "if necessary," support of indefinite detention of Al Qaeda suspects, and the right to bypass federal courts to prosecute certain detainees.
Moving or Closing Guantanamo Bay?
Although Obama promised substantial changes in these areas, to date, the differences relate more to form, rather than substance. For example, although Obama has ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the Navy has produced a study, at the president's request, which concludes that the facility complies with the Geneva Conventions. Although some human rights advocates condemned the Navy's report, Attorney General Eric Holder subsequently visited the facility and offered favorable reviews as well.
Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay in response to sharp criticism among domestic and international human rights activists who argued that the Bush administration unlawfully detained captives, denied them access to courts, and subjected them to torture. The Supreme Court concluded that detainees at the facility had a right to judicial review of their detention and, subsequently, that procedural deficiencies in military commissions authorized by Congress made the commissions an impermissible alternative to federal courts.
Although the President has ordered the closure of the facility, the government will likely send many present and future detainees to Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan (and to other locations). The Obama administration, following Bush's lead, contends that detainees at Bagram do not qualify for access to the federal courts. Also, Holder and Solicitor General Elena Kagan stated during their confirmation hearings that the United States can indefinitely detain suspected members of Al Qaeda (whether or not they were caught on the battlefield, according to Kagan). If the President acts upon the broad authority his staff claims he possesses, Bagram could easily become the functional equivalent of Guantanamo Bay.
Governing in Prose
During the Democratic Primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton attempted to explain why she believed her "on the ground" approach was better in a president, even though members of the media and millions of Democrats preferred the "excitement," energy, and crowds of Obama's mammoth rallies. Clinton, quoting former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, reminded voters that: "You campaign with poetry, but you govern with prose."
At this point, it is unclear whether even solid prose and policy could alter the power of lobbyists and the impulse for members of Congress to secure earmarks. It is abundantly clear, however, that the wave of excitement that shaped the 2008 election has not transformed Washington into a place that welcomes substantive reform. As Sheila Krumholz, Director of the Center for Responsive Politics, tells the L.A. Times:
Another recent post: Silly Me: Opposition to Earmarks Is "Last Year's Business"
Correction: Please note that the description of the size of the "earmark" that Obama sponsored has been edited for accuracy.
Washington has its traditions just like any other city. But unlike other places, Washington is the home of the second-oldest profession: politics. This makes the city impervious to demands for change -- especially change that strikes at the core of its deal-based political culture. And while the 2008 election promised "change" at all levels, signs of "business as usual" remain abundant.
Mo' Money, Mo' Problems!
Earmarks
Last week, the House passed an omnibus budget that contains billions of dollars in earmarks proposed by lawmakers in both parties. Several members of the Obama administration, including Obama himself, have sponsored earmarks which appear in the proposed budget.
During his presidential campaign, however, Obama routinely condemned earmarks. His opposition to earmarks led to the media's obsession with Alaska's so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," which Democrats said proved that Sarah Palin engaged in double-talk on fiscal conservatism. Recently, after fiscal watchdogs began publicizing the volume of earmarks in the proposed budget, Obama scrubbed his name from a multi-million dollar earmark that previously designated him as a co-sponsor. The earmarks, however, remain in the bill. Members of Obama's staff have defended the inclusion of earmarks in the budget on the grounds that the concern over pork spending was "last year's business."
Lobbyists
Lobbyists are another staple of Washington's political culture. Obama campaigned on a pronounced anti-lobbying theme, and after he was elected, he immediately implemented rules that prohibit former lobbyists who join the government from shaping policy on issues related to their previous work. But Obama immediately ignored his own rules in order to appoint William Lynn as Assistant Secretary of Defense.
He was also presumably set to waive the rule (or at least ignore the spirit behind it) for Tom Daschle, his original pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Although Daschle ultimately withdrew from consideration over controversy surrounding unpaid taxes, some critics also complained that he had earned millions of dollars representing and providing advice to insurance companies and that he was a trustee of the Mayo Clinic. Daschle, however, was not formally registered as a "lobbyist."
In addition, as a campaigner, Obama promised transparency and accountability on health care reform, but lobbyists for insurance companies and other groups have held private meetings with Senator Ted Kennedy to discuss the issue before the public debates. According to the L.A. Times:
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said that in overhauling healthcare he would make the negotiations public, and even invite C-SPAN to air the talks on television.As Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Kennedy will have a large role in shaping health care reform. As usual, lobbyists are directing their attention to the appropriate persons.
Yet in recent months, lobbyists and health insurance company representatives have been meeting behind closed doors -- with the White House's knowledge -- in the office of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to debate options for a new health system.
Improving "Our" Image in the World
Obama's supporters promised that his election would repair the image of the United States in the world community, which, they contend, Bush's militaristic practices and abusive antiterriorism policies severely damaged. A combination of legal strategy, politics and policy considerations, however, have caused Obama to retain many of the same Bush-era practices or legal positions that liberals believe injured the country' reputation. These policies include rendition, blanket usage of the state secrets privilege, the openness to "harsh" interrogation methods "if necessary," support of indefinite detention of Al Qaeda suspects, and the right to bypass federal courts to prosecute certain detainees.
Moving or Closing Guantanamo Bay?
Although Obama promised substantial changes in these areas, to date, the differences relate more to form, rather than substance. For example, although Obama has ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the Navy has produced a study, at the president's request, which concludes that the facility complies with the Geneva Conventions. Although some human rights advocates condemned the Navy's report, Attorney General Eric Holder subsequently visited the facility and offered favorable reviews as well.
Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay in response to sharp criticism among domestic and international human rights activists who argued that the Bush administration unlawfully detained captives, denied them access to courts, and subjected them to torture. The Supreme Court concluded that detainees at the facility had a right to judicial review of their detention and, subsequently, that procedural deficiencies in military commissions authorized by Congress made the commissions an impermissible alternative to federal courts.
Although the President has ordered the closure of the facility, the government will likely send many present and future detainees to Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan (and to other locations). The Obama administration, following Bush's lead, contends that detainees at Bagram do not qualify for access to the federal courts. Also, Holder and Solicitor General Elena Kagan stated during their confirmation hearings that the United States can indefinitely detain suspected members of Al Qaeda (whether or not they were caught on the battlefield, according to Kagan). If the President acts upon the broad authority his staff claims he possesses, Bagram could easily become the functional equivalent of Guantanamo Bay.
Governing in Prose
During the Democratic Primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton attempted to explain why she believed her "on the ground" approach was better in a president, even though members of the media and millions of Democrats preferred the "excitement," energy, and crowds of Obama's mammoth rallies. Clinton, quoting former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, reminded voters that: "You campaign with poetry, but you govern with prose."
At this point, it is unclear whether even solid prose and policy could alter the power of lobbyists and the impulse for members of Congress to secure earmarks. It is abundantly clear, however, that the wave of excitement that shaped the 2008 election has not transformed Washington into a place that welcomes substantive reform. As Sheila Krumholz, Director of the Center for Responsive Politics, tells the L.A. Times:
"I don't think anyone who is familiar with the way Washington works was under any illusions about the ease in doing this. . . .It's very different to make promises on the campaign stump than it is putting together an administration and running a government. . . . I don't think it's a given that it's possible to change the culture of Washington."I wholeheartedly agree with Krumholz's assessment. There's an old saying about change-resistant people going into new situations "kicking and screaming." But things look so remarkably the same around Washington that even the most stubborn adherents of the status quo have not even begun preparing either to kick or scream. They are definitely engaging in partisan whining and bickering, but that is so yesterday.
Another recent post: Silly Me: Opposition to Earmarks Is "Last Year's Business"
Correction: Please note that the description of the size of the "earmark" that Obama sponsored has been edited for accuracy.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
You Won't Believe Your Eyes: Despite Anti-Earmark Fervor and Economic Crisis, Proposed Budget Would Fund Thousands of Pork Projects
Last Year: Earmarks = The Bubonic Plague
Last year, the major presidential candidates each made very moralistic arguments condemning "earmarks." Earmarks are provisions in federal budget legislation which direct agencies to spend allocated money on specific projects.
Obama made opposition to earmarks a centerpiece of his campaign. He even pledged not to request any earmarks for fiscal year 2009. And during his speech to Congress on Tuesday, Obama proudly announced that the stimulus was "free of earmarks." Furthermore, Obama, Clinton, and McCain all co-sponsored an unsuccessful legislative provision that would have imposed a one-year moratorium on earmarks. Boy have things changed!
This Year: Earmarks = "What We Do"
Although Obama fought off efforts by lawmakers who wanted to insert earmarks into the stimulus package, it seems that he might have capitulated this time around. According to an article on Bloomberg.Com, the House will soon approve a budget that contains $7.7 billion in funding for 8,570 special projects (roughly 2% of the budget).
Legislation which passed during the Fall of 2008 contains an additional $6.6 billion in earmarks. Despite all of the anti-earmark rhetoric during the presidential campaign, the nonpartisan watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates that the total amount of earmarks for 2009 (if the earmarks are not slashed from the final bill) is only $500 million less than last year's total.
The top Senators from both parties have responded to the earmark issue. Senator Harry Reid defends earmarks as allowing Congress to exercise its constitutional authority over spending. Directing spending is "what we do," Reid says. His argument is not without merit. In the absence of a specific allocation, the executive agencies have wide latitude over the use of budgetary authority. But this certainly contradicts the message that the candidates advanced during the presidential campaign. Reid has a response for this too: Congress is "a separate branch of government."
Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, who once bragged about his ability to bring bacon to his home state of Kentucky, says that he worries less about the "content" of the budget than its overall size. In other words, the inclusion of earmarks in the budget does not bother McConnell. Because both parties have padded the bill with earmarks, the position by Reid and McConnell should not surprise readers.
Examining the Pork
The Bloomberg article provides details of some of the pork in the proposed budget. Also, the Taxpayers for Common Sense website has a very extensive description of earmarks in the proposed budget, which the organization continues to update (here is the link).
Below, I have summarized some of the proposed earmarks. Do you consider these expenditures "reasonable," given the current economic crisis?
* 400,000, to combat bullying in Montana (huh?)
* 1.8 million, "swine odor and manure management in Iowa" (I suspect this might be a fairly important environmental issue in an agricultural state like Iowa)
* 900,000, Chicago's Adler Planetarium (requested by Rahm Emanuel before he left the House)
* 190,000, Chicago's Children's Memorial Research Center (Emanuel)
* 238,000, Academy for Urban School Leadership (Emanuel)
* 190,000, Advocate Health Care (Emanuel)
* 95,000, Kohl Children Museum of Greater Chicago (Emanuel)
* 95,000, Peoria Riverfront Museum (requested by Ray LaHood before he became Transportation Secretary)
* 381,000, University of Illinois College of Medicine (LaHood)
* 951,500, Sustainable Las Vegas (Shelley Berkeley and Harry Reid)
* 143,000, Las Vegas Natural History Museum (Reid)
* 190,000, Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody Wyoming (Barbara Cubin)
* 381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York City (Jerrold Nadler)
Last year, the major presidential candidates each made very moralistic arguments condemning "earmarks." Earmarks are provisions in federal budget legislation which direct agencies to spend allocated money on specific projects.
Obama made opposition to earmarks a centerpiece of his campaign. He even pledged not to request any earmarks for fiscal year 2009. And during his speech to Congress on Tuesday, Obama proudly announced that the stimulus was "free of earmarks." Furthermore, Obama, Clinton, and McCain all co-sponsored an unsuccessful legislative provision that would have imposed a one-year moratorium on earmarks. Boy have things changed!
This Year: Earmarks = "What We Do"
Although Obama fought off efforts by lawmakers who wanted to insert earmarks into the stimulus package, it seems that he might have capitulated this time around. According to an article on Bloomberg.Com, the House will soon approve a budget that contains $7.7 billion in funding for 8,570 special projects (roughly 2% of the budget).
Legislation which passed during the Fall of 2008 contains an additional $6.6 billion in earmarks. Despite all of the anti-earmark rhetoric during the presidential campaign, the nonpartisan watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates that the total amount of earmarks for 2009 (if the earmarks are not slashed from the final bill) is only $500 million less than last year's total.
The top Senators from both parties have responded to the earmark issue. Senator Harry Reid defends earmarks as allowing Congress to exercise its constitutional authority over spending. Directing spending is "what we do," Reid says. His argument is not without merit. In the absence of a specific allocation, the executive agencies have wide latitude over the use of budgetary authority. But this certainly contradicts the message that the candidates advanced during the presidential campaign. Reid has a response for this too: Congress is "a separate branch of government."
Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, who once bragged about his ability to bring bacon to his home state of Kentucky, says that he worries less about the "content" of the budget than its overall size. In other words, the inclusion of earmarks in the budget does not bother McConnell. Because both parties have padded the bill with earmarks, the position by Reid and McConnell should not surprise readers.
Examining the Pork
The Bloomberg article provides details of some of the pork in the proposed budget. Also, the Taxpayers for Common Sense website has a very extensive description of earmarks in the proposed budget, which the organization continues to update (here is the link).
Below, I have summarized some of the proposed earmarks. Do you consider these expenditures "reasonable," given the current economic crisis?
* 400,000, to combat bullying in Montana (huh?)
* 1.8 million, "swine odor and manure management in Iowa" (I suspect this might be a fairly important environmental issue in an agricultural state like Iowa)
* 900,000, Chicago's Adler Planetarium (requested by Rahm Emanuel before he left the House)
* 190,000, Chicago's Children's Memorial Research Center (Emanuel)
* 238,000, Academy for Urban School Leadership (Emanuel)
* 190,000, Advocate Health Care (Emanuel)
* 95,000, Kohl Children Museum of Greater Chicago (Emanuel)
* 95,000, Peoria Riverfront Museum (requested by Ray LaHood before he became Transportation Secretary)
* 381,000, University of Illinois College of Medicine (LaHood)
* 951,500, Sustainable Las Vegas (Shelley Berkeley and Harry Reid)
* 143,000, Las Vegas Natural History Museum (Reid)
* 190,000, Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody Wyoming (Barbara Cubin)
* 381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York City (Jerrold Nadler)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)