Administrative earmarks: Obama as influence peddler in chief

posted at 10:51 am on February 22, 2012 by

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama was challenged by the late Tim Russert on Meet the Press to explain the disparity between his words and deeds when it came to decrying lobbyists. In this video clip of the exchange, Russert recites a portion of a Boston Globe editorial pointing out that during Obama’s years in the Illinois Senate, two out of every three dollars “he raised for his campaigns … came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions.”

Obama’s response takes the form of a furious tap dance around the truth in which he ultimately offers up the lame rationalization that, while he has taken money from special interests to support his elections, he has been fighting to end the practice.

If we are to take Obama at his word, a new report by the Heritage Foundation suggests that he lost the battle. The report focuses on administrative earmarking, which is “the federal government’s allocation of funds from its discretionary budget for specific projects.” Unlike legislative earmarking, this swap of taxpayer dollars for political favors flies largely under the radar, “since, according to the Congressional Research Service, ‘[t]here is no source that defines and comprehensively identifies Administrative earmarks.’”

The allocations, moreover, are delivered as federal grants, which further conceals any hint of impropriety. Yet, writes Lachlan Markey, one of the report’s authors,

an analysis of grants from agencies during the early years of the Obama administration shows that the districts of moderate Democrats, whose support was so crucial for Obama during the 111th Congress, received large sums right around the passage of three key pieces of legislation: Obamacare, Dodd-Frank financial regulations, and the cap-and-trade bill. [See graph]

Even more troubling: during the same time periods, significant grant money went to the districts of numerous Democratic representatives who looked to face tough battles for re-election. The legislation Obama was attempting to get through Congress was generally unpopular, and vulnerable members needed other ways to appeal to constituents. Federal grants made for a perfect opportunity.

In its own coverage of the Heritage report, FOX News notes:

President Obama didn’t invent the practice. FDR used it to great effect and President Nixon is reported to have used earmarks to help win support for re-election by sending funds to key states or voting blocs.

But President Obama has vastly expanded the practice.

Numbers from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service show that the value of administration earmarks under President Obama increased by a 126 percent in his first two years in office and the actual number of administrative earmarks increased by 54 percent.

Those are dramatic increases that are 11 times more than Congress itself increased earmarks….

Naturally, the White House was quick to deflect criticism. Here’s Press Secretary Jay Carney:

The president’s opposition to earmarks is well known. The fact of the matter is I’m confident the issuance of grants from agencies are done … in a merit based way.

In short, nothing to see here; just move along. So far that is precisely what the three major networks, the New York Times and the Washington Post have done.

Related Articles

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

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.