Pork barrel spending increases … again
posted at 10:55 am on August 14, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
And The Hill doesn’t even count the Obama-Pelosi omnibus spending bill, the biggest Trojan Porker ever passed by Congress. Instead, they focus on appropriations bills, and discover that the Democratic majority has resulted in even further increases of the normal version of pork-barrel spending on Capitol Hill. But that’s okay, because Barack Obama promised to veto pork bills … right?
The cost of earmarks increased this year despite lawmakers’ claims they’re working to reduce pork-barrel spending. Earmarks, which are inserted in appropriations bills by members in order to fund specific projects, added up to $19.9 billion in 2009, according to an analysis by the Taxpayers for Common Sense and Center for Responsive Politics. Earmarks in 2008 spending bills were worth $18.3 billion. … “At a minimum, earmarks granted to lawmakers’ friends and supporters merit scrutiny and indicate potential conflicts of interest,” said Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a presidential veto. Obama had that opportunity with the $410 billion omnibus bill in the first few weeks of his presidency. Despite matching John McCain’s anti-pork rhetoric on the campaign trail, Obama obligingly signed the bill handed to him by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, even though almost 2% of it consisted of Congressional handouts and favors. Don’t forget about the stimulus bill. The Hill notes that Obama held Congress to the requirement that they could not add earmarks to Porkulus, but that would have been redundant anyway. The entire bill consisted of nothing more than liberal-agenda wish-list items and sops to special interests.
Who are the worst offenders? The years change, but not a lot of the names. The House has 16 members with more than $100 million in earmarks, all but two of them Democrats. David Loesback is the worst with $217 million in 29 earmarks, but John Murtha ($138 million) and David Obey ($150 million) make the top 10.
In the Senate, it’s a much more bipartisan affair, with Republicans and Democrats splitting the top 10. Mississippi takes Alaska’s crown for pork king with Republicans Roger Wicker and That Cochran both rolling up a billion dollars and more for the home state. Robert Byrd dropped to seventh, but he’s been ill for most of the past year, too. However, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, and Mary Landrieu fill in well for Byrd.
This problem didn’t get any better under Democratic leadership; in fact, it’s getting worse.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Evidence continues to pile up that there’s no difference between the two parties. Americans response: I’m just gonna vote for them anyway. *sigh*
CrankyIndependent on August 14, 2009 at 10:58 AM
The background anger for the recent townhalls; this is about more than health care.
Bishop on August 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM
I think the whole nation is being infected by this congressional “swine flu”…
right2bright on August 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Every time I see that photo of Dingy Harry grabbing his chest, I become very hopeful that the end is near for him.
UltimateBob on August 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM
You mean…like, swamp pigs?
Freaking awesome.
Good Lt on August 14, 2009 at 11:00 AM
I love the picture. It makes me think that someone just read the sign under the podium and Dingy Harry is clutching his chest in shock and discomfort.
milwife88 on August 14, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Ironically, this probably is also what the anger is about, but the media won’t report on stuff like that.
CrankyIndependent on August 14, 2009 at 11:01 AM
That and the fact there isn’t a highway, bridge, or mailbox that hasn’t been named for the creaky old racist.
highhopes on August 14, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Let’s put these responsible people in charge of healthcare, shall we?
kc8ukw on August 14, 2009 at 11:03 AM
2010 can’t get here quick enough.
Keyser-Soze on August 14, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Perhaps somebody should be stalking the halls of the Senate ready to jump out of the shadows and yell boo when they see Reid.
highhopes on August 14, 2009 at 11:03 AM
It’s confusing that people are willing to let these bozos run/plan wars, but balk at healthcare. How is the stewardship of war not more important?
CrankyIndependent on August 14, 2009 at 11:04 AM
shocka!!
same sh*t, different day
cmsinaz on August 14, 2009 at 11:04 AM
The sign in front of Nancy’s Harry B.O is the real joke:
…if it looks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck it’s a PIG!
SayNo2-O on August 14, 2009 at 11:05 AM
But we have raised the minimum wage and further regulated businesses. This does not make sense. You would think with more government involvement the income inequality gap would shrink. Hmmmmmm…strange.
WashJeff on August 14, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Agreed. It’s become a cause to take back government from the political class. Healthcare is merely a rallying point.
highhopes on August 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM
How many health insurance policies could be purchased for the uninsured for $19 billion? Will anyone have the balls to ask Reid or Pelosi this question???
rockmom on August 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Hogzilla
Disturb the Universe on August 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM
It’s even better than that…. Obama issued a signing statement to justify the earmarks in a bill that didn’t see the light for the requisite number of days as he promised. By my count, his actions violated three of his campaign promises: to not use signing statements; to eliminate earmarks from legislation; and to have a bill see the light of day for five days before he signs it.
suburbanite on August 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM
But Reid and Pelosi declared the Iraq war “lost” in 2006. That’s how good they are at war management!
rockmom on August 14, 2009 at 11:07 AM
“We will not rest until we separate every American from his wealth, and bankrupt this nation for its own sake.”
Hening on August 14, 2009 at 11:08 AM
As the One said, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. Or 535 pigs.
Would a swine flu epidemic eliminate half of Congress?
Steve Z on August 14, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Sure is easy to write checks out of someone elses book.
Just anothe teeth grinder.
HoustonRight on August 14, 2009 at 11:10 AM
It’s confusing that people are willing to let these bozos run/plan wars, but balk at healthcare. How is the stewardship of war not more important?
CrankyIndependent on August 14, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Because I trust the Sergeant to be faithful in the field. I trust the General not to let his men down when he is given a mission.
barnone on August 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM
There are four things to think about in legislation and who gets the pork is just one of them. Who’s getting regulated, who isn’t getting regulated, who gets the pork, and who doesn’t get pork. The healthcare bill is a great example. Caregivers (clinics, doctors, hospitals…) get the life regulated out of them. Trial lawyers are untouched.
We are in this mess because we are focused on laws, regulations, peoples behaviors… We need to focus as much or more on people’s hearts and minds. Until we do, it will only get worse. Bills like this are great opportunities to start talking to your friends and neighbors about the fundamentals of liberty.
ClanDerson on August 14, 2009 at 11:15 AM
I understand that the normal trend is for pork spending to go up as the margin for control of congress gets narrower, and down as one party increases its control.
That, however, would not hold if one party has an overwhelming bent toward political payoffs and corruption.
Count to 10 on August 14, 2009 at 11:15 AM
San Fran Nan has created their natural habitat.
And thems piggies sure do love rooting around in that mud…
phreshone on August 14, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Pork, I don’t see no stinking Pork!
Sanmon on August 14, 2009 at 11:16 AM
somebody follow Murtha he is one of the king’s of the pork cannon…..
sven10077 on August 14, 2009 at 11:16 AM
No one cares about pork barrel spending – Schumer
lorien1973 on August 14, 2009 at 11:17 AM
They all need to be removed from Congress. We must keep the pressure on!
trs on August 14, 2009 at 11:17 AM
..aside from the usual effrontery to the American taxpayer, the picture of these three idiots with that sign about honest gummint exceeds the classic stupidity of The Boy King’s “Office otf the President Elect” emblem.
Can these people get any more tone-deaf?
VoyskaPVO on August 14, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Hey, Jesus would want pork barrel spending. Isn’t that what we’re hearing.
Mojave Mark on August 14, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Um, the Senate gets to declare war, not run it or plan it.
Well, outside of Vietnam, anyway, and we know how that turned out.
Count to 10 on August 14, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Cranky Independent: Read Wayne Allen Root’s book “The Conscience of a Libertarian”. I’ve been a registered independent since 1986, when I felt the Republicans had become the “Jerry Falwell Party”,and it was time for me to leave for awhile. I’m getting ready to register as a Libertarian as they are the closest to me philisophically, as in strict adherence to the Constitution. To me, the Republicans are really just Democrat Lite. I vote Republican as I can’t bear to vote socialist, but they are pigs eating out of the same trough and exercising powers that are constitutionally prohibited the same as the Dems.
Wayne Allen Root(L)for President in 2012.
adamsmith on August 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM
We in the chattering class just need to stick a sock in it. What class is he considering himself a part of?
TXMomof3 on August 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM
If you don’ like how much YOU earn, or YOUR life’s circumstances, then YOU change ‘em.
bloviator on August 14, 2009 at 11:22 AM
One simple question: Do these figures include the 2009 Omnibus OR the infamous Porkulus/Stimulus bills?
Rovin on August 14, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Every time I see that pic posted here I crack up. It’s sooo 1984. Honesty = Lies
Open government = Obfuscation and subterfuge
Transparency = Opaqueness
Orwell would be proud… Proud = Horrified
Battlecruiser-operational on August 14, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Actually, I wish Congress would go back to having to declare war or not. The War Powers Act gives them an out. GWB didn’t deserve his political opponents letting him engage in two combat zones at the same time they were undermining the troops and questioning the actions.
highhopes on August 14, 2009 at 11:29 AM
But…but…but…THAT’S NOT FAIR!!!!
BigWyo on August 14, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Nothin’ kosher about Congress…
phreshone on August 14, 2009 at 11:30 AM
That’s it! I’ve had it. We need to demand every incumbent and every politician running to unseat an incumbent take a pledge against PORK! If they are on the record pledging “NO PORK”, and slip something in, they are dead to me.
Pledge:
NO PORK/EARMARKS
NO NEW SPENDING
NO DEFICIT SPENDING
NO NEW TAXES
CUT TAXES ACROSS THE BOARD
If they won’t pledge, they must go!
JAM on August 14, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Why in the world are we even discussing $19 Billion…that doesn’t even cover the interest on the $787B Porkulus
CMonster on August 14, 2009 at 11:33 AM
“Now wait a minute…Let me be clear on this…blah, blah, blah,…blah…blah…blah…(45 minutes later)…blah…and that’s why Michelle’s arms are so toned.”
whitetop on August 14, 2009 at 11:33 AM
At least with earmarks you know if they’re screwing you or not, unlike that 12 trillion the Fed kicked out the door.
The Calibur on August 14, 2009 at 11:33 AM
*shock*
/s
Yakko77 on August 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM
…the biggest Trojan Porker ever…
Ed
Was that intentional, Ed, or did your subconscious open a window on your naughty side?
SKYFOX on August 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM
If only we could get a fatwa and jihad against spending……..
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 14, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Tru dat, Komrade.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 14, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Obama’s promises all have an expiration date. I look forward to his expiration date 01/20/2013!
farright on August 14, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Even if Democrats and Republicans were equally corrupt, these things will always be worse under Democrats because there is no media scrutiny of Democrats.
zmdavid on August 14, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Vote them ALL out in 2010. Make them pay.
Daggett on August 14, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Why is it you Democrats care so much about equality but not liberty? And who cares about Wealth Redistribution when we can create opportunity and expand the economy?
Does it matter if a businessman is making six or even seven digits a year?
Doesn’t it matter more if the market is healthy enough for individuals to take care of themselves?
As for your social programs. What would be a better program? One that merely subsidizes poverty or pushes people out of poverty?
You liberals are going to Welfare this nation and her people into poverty and servitude.
Holger on August 14, 2009 at 11:48 AM
heh… just checked my birth certificate. There’s no guarantee of satisfaction or outcome attached to it.
bloviator on August 14, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Joihn Murtha? No!! IM shocked!
becki51758 on August 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Comment of the Day™
steveegg on August 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM
oops…John
becki51758 on August 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM
That and the fact there isn’t a highway, bridge, or mailbox that hasn’t been named for the creaky old racist.
We call them Byrd Droppings.
humdinger on August 14, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Actually if you look at the graph the wage inequality gap grows as government involvement in the economy decreases. You can trace income disparity as Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush II slowly dismantled the New Deal social safety net. The height of government involvement in the economy 40s, 50s, 60s shows the lowest income disparity.
CrankyIndependent on August 14, 2009 at 12:14 PM
“Evil-mongerers” increase pork barrel spending, again.
maverick muse on August 14, 2009 at 12:15 PM
I’ll add that periods of high income inequality, the “gilded age” and the period from 1980 till now have coincided with a “boom-bust” cycle because wages aren’t high enough to keep people spending at a consistent pace. Thus speculation (boom) overleveraging (bust). But our media loves to talk about a few million dollars spent on volcano research and Americans are pissed off without a clue as to what’s really going on.
CrankyIndependent on August 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I think what this data shows is that unrestrained capitalism, pretty much what we’ve had from Reagan forward, is more destructive than the mild democratic socialism institued by FDR and perpetuated by Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson. It’s just dissapointing that even independent media outlets like Hotair focuses on silly partisan crap like which party is wasting money on pork. Ed or Allah could write the exact same blog post 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago and they probably will write the same post that many years into the future. And neither will advocate supporting 3rd party options on either side.
CrankyIndependent on August 14, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Note they have Benedict Arlen still listed as Republican.
Christian Conservative on August 14, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Sorry, what (non-redundant) programs were dismantled under those Presidents?
I think you have a very different definition of “unrestrained capitalism” than I do, or than Milton Friedman or Adam Smith do.
But I do find it humorous every time a lefty or “independent” shows up on a right-leaning site and tries to correlate talking points to recent “unrestrained capitalism.”
DKH on August 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Yes, this seems to be the new meme of the intellectual Left. America was some paradise of equality until Ronald Reagan showed up and blew it all to hell in an orgy of tax cuts for the rich.
Lemme tell you, I lived through the 1960s and 1970s and it was no picnic. All that great “mild socialism” brought us was 15% inflation, gas lines, meat shortages, a starved and broken military, and a Soviet Union on the march around the world.
rockmom on August 14, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Strawmen help no one. Ronal Reagan, himself, (like any President) only did so much, obviously. But the rise of a kind of neo-lassez faire ideology, which Reagan represented is the cause of our current woes. From the 40s through the 70s there was income disparity as there always will be in capitalist systems, but the middle class controlled a significantly greater portion of American wealth than they do now. That’s actually a good thing for everyone involved, it means they can buy things, things that keep those at the top flowing in dough, things that employ people who make less than they do.
Conservatives always focus on what’s happening with the minimum wage, that’s a distraction used by Democrats and Republicans (for different reasons) to avoid talking about what’s happening with the middle class. As wages have not risen along with profit margins we’ve squeezed middle class families even as we lower taxes and decreased regulation on corporations all in the interest of lowering prices. That lowering of prices kind of didn’t happen, certainly not in such a dramatic way as to offset growing healthcare costs, college education costs (once paid for by the state in large part) retirement costs (people don’t seem content to live with their kids anymore) clothing costs etc. etc. etc.
CrankyIndependent on August 14, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Ummmm… because politicians don’t run wars… only authorize and pay for them. Military commanders, skilled in tactics and command, run wars.
Politicians should leave healthcare to healthcare professionals and get out of the way and stop regulating it to death!
dominigan on August 14, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I’ve long had utter contempt for political “independents” – people with no guiding principles who like to think that they’re more “thoughtful” than those of us who merely base our political views on the Constitution.
But this new troll, CrankyIndependent, ramps my contempt up to an entirely new level.
The guy can’t even reason.
Let’s see: because America goes to war at times, any support for our troops de-legitamizes our resistance to having socialized healthcare rammed down our throats.
Idiot.
guntotinglibertarian on August 14, 2009 at 2:58 PM
The notion that a self-describe libertarian would claim that another person who rejects the two party system has no “guiding principles” needs to replace whatever other example is used in the dictionary to demonstrate irony. Like yourself, I have a guiding set of principles, which is precisely why I’m NOT a member of a political party whose only “principles” are “what will keep my corrupt ass elected.” Hint, that means I’m not a member of either of our two parties. Now please, run along and bother the sheeple who keep voting in the GOP/DEMOS as if doing so represented any kind of a choice.
As for your (and others) attack on my argument. If the healthcare bill passed members of congress wouldn’t be “running” healthcare anymore than they “run” wars. (And don’t be mistaken, members of congress have more influence on war planning than I’m comfortable with). If a universal system passed they would merely fund that and doctors/health professionals would administer it.
CrankyIndependent on August 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM
If you believe that, you’re even more of an idiot than I thought you were.
guntotinglibertarian on August 14, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Right because Maxine Waters is going to be in Congress with a sheet of old grannies, a black pen and the words “DEATH PANEL” emblazoned on the top as she strikes through people’s names. I’m not about flamewars man, stay classy.
CrankyIndependent on August 14, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Fund it with whose money? Yours? Mine.
I’ll decide how to spend my money.
And your faith in “professionals” is beyond naive. You’re talking about professional bureaucrats, troll.
I’ll leave my healthcare to the two people who know the most about it. Me. And my doctor.
Not to you. Not to your Congressman. And damn sure not to any government-paid “professional”.
You’re like most independents: you’re really an uninformed Lefty who likes to imagine that you’re more ruminative.
You should have chosen an honest screen name. At least the guys who put “lib” in their names have the guts to say who they really are.
guntotinglibertarian on August 14, 2009 at 3:39 PM