« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

The Year in Earmarks

12,881 earmarks. $18.3 billion. Taxpayers for Common Sense has cataloged them all, and you can see them right here in their awe-inspiring earmark database of this year's spending bills. Jump in and tell us what you find.

A number of journalists dove in to the database and here's what they came up with (TPMm research hounds Andrew Berger, Peter Sheehy, and Diane Vacca compiled this round-up):

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) has received campaign contributions from each (sub. req.) of the 26 groups for whom he requested earmarks in the recent defense spending bill. An analysis by Roll Call shows that since the beginning of 2005, PACs and employees of those groups have given Murtha $413,250, of which $100,750 came "in the two weeks leading up to March 16, the original deadline for lawmakers to file their earmark requests." (Roll Call)

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)

Freshmen Democrats in the House are "among the biggest recipients of earmarked funds." Democratic leaders have distributed the funds with an eye towards aiding representatives in contested districts in the upcoming election. Further analysis of the study by Congressional Quarterly shows that Democratic minority lawmakers trailed white Democratic lawmakers' earmarks by a two to one ratio in the House. (The Hill, CQ Politics)

Despite being under investigation for his ties to lobbyist and former congressional representative Bill Lowery, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) still requested, either alone or in conjunction with others, a total of $137 million in earmarks last year. Among the recipients was Trident Systems Incorporated, a company whose ties to Lewis have been previously reported. (Los Angeles Times, Harper's)

Last year only eighteen members of Congress - twelve in the House and six in the Senate - did not request any earmarks. Among the Republicans abstaining from the practice were House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) while only three Democrats - Sens. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) - did not make a request. (AP)

Rank-and-file Representatives in Congress secured (sub. req.) an average of $4 million in earmarks for their districts in 2007, but members of the Appropriations Committees of both houses got many times more. Members of the House committee obtained an average of $22 million. Senators procured an average of $10.4 million, but members of the Senate Appropriations Committee earned an average of $88.7 million for their constituents. (Roll Call)


Comments (9)

avatar

Isn't this a bit out of context?
Does reporting / examining currant ear marks without comparing them to the much higher amount passed by the Repub controled congress give a misleading impression?

Why am i afraid this might be misused?

avatar

Also to put things in context, not that $18 billion isn't a lot of money, but isn't it about two months in Iraq? Isn't it a drop in a $3 trillion budget? And that's even assuming all the money is wasted. I'm guessing many, maybe most, projects make some sense. We assume congressmen know the needs of their district and I don't mind if congressmen use earmarking to fix the bridge before it fails or the library roof before the rain ruins the collection.

Let's keep our eye on the ball, not just in terms of big spending like Iraq, but look for earmarks outside the district, or which benefit just a few people, especially when they're connected to the congressman.

avatar

I am so glad my tax money is going to such good causes.
Can I get the earmark first and then pay the bribery charges? Or do you have to bribe before you get the money?
I wonder if my bank would loan me the bribe money with the knowledge that I will get the earmark.
Darnit, I need to get an earmark!

avatar

What's wrong with earmarks, anyway? Congress has the Constitutional power to appropriate funds. Why is it OK for them to give $10 million to the Department of Health, but terrible for them to give $10 million to the Department of Health for purposes of building a medical laboratory in Rep. Smith's district?

That said, I do believe earmarks should go through the normal budgeting process (i.e. should be voted on by the entire Congress), and I do applaud Coburn-Obama for making the process transparent.

avatar

What's wrong with earmarks, anyway? Congress has the Constitutional power to appropriate funds. Why is it OK for them to give $10 million to the Department of Health, but terrible for them to give $10 million to the Department of Health for purposes of building a medical laboratory in Rep. Smith's district?

That said, I do believe earmarks should go through the normal budgeting process (i.e. should be voted on by the entire Congress), and I do applaud Coburn-Obama for making the process transparent.

avatar

What's wrong with earmarks, anyway? Congress has the Constitutional power to appropriate funds. Why is it OK for them to give $10 million to the Department of Health, but terrible for them to give $10 million to the Department of Health for purposes of building a medical laboratory in Rep. Smith's district?

That said, I do believe earmarks should go through the normal budgeting process (i.e. should be voted on by the entire Congress), and I do applaud Coburn-Obama for making the process transparent.

Though I didn't vote for Clinton, I support her on the earmarks issue. All this shows is that she worked hard for the interests of the people of New York State. John McCain got no earmarks. I live in Arizona, and apparently our senator, John McCain, didn't even try to compete for a fair share of federal dollars for us. As long as earmarks are allowed, why not try to get them. As an analogy, I don't think there should be loopholes in the federal income tax law, but - as long as they are on the books - I will take advantage of them whenever I can.

avatar

Earmarks prevent contracts and funding from being properly scrutinized or competitively bid. $10 million in Rep Smith's district may not be the most efficient way for the government to spend our money. I would liken it as the equivalent to a no-bid contract which is bad for both cost and productivity.

avatar

The problem with earmarks is they all too often put the needs of the elected and their electors (in that order) ahead of the needs of our country. There is no mechanism to ensure otherwise beyond the personal restraint of each Senator and Representative.

Thus the US government repeatedly squanders the taxpayer's money buying goods and services we no longer require or didn't ever require in a quantity or frequency we won't ever need. To pay for this foolishness and a foolhardy war, we cut funds for goods and services we do require or will require at a quantity or frequency that is inadequate if at all.

Which is why Congress has long fought citizen access to info that would hold each of them accountable for their earmarks. Many do not want us to be able to easily connect the dots between their pork, their constituencies, their lobbyists friends, their contributions to government and their voting records. It could prove impossible to keep their office let alone seek higher office if the extent of their pursuit of self-interests and special interests is fully exposed.

-AF

Post a Comment

Tag Cloud

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address