All Hail the Pork Queen

Overpaid Slacker · 11-09-2007, 05:57 AM

From CQ:

Guess which presidential candidate has the temerity to talk fiscal responsibility while outstripping the other candidates in pork-barrel spending? It turns out the Woodstock museum was only the headline act in a long concert of earmarking for Hillary Clinton. Not only does she lead the Senate delegation in this cycle's presidential race, but despite her junior status, she earmarked more than five times more money than her nearest competitor:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has won tens of millions of dollars more in federal earmarks this year than her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, even though two of them have significantly more Senate seniority.
A review of the first three appropriations conference reports finished by Senate and House negotiators shows that Clinton has successfully requested at least $530 million worth of projects.

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), Clinton’s chief rival for the nomination, has so far won $40.6 million in earmarked funds for his constituents, despite the fact that his home-state colleague and booster, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), sits on the Appropriations Committee. ....

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who came to the Senate in 1981, helped place $100 million worth of earmarks in the three spending bills that have emerged from House-Senate negotiations.

Joe Biden only has $67 million in earmarks in these first three bills. Put together, the rest of the Senators have around $210 million in pork aggregate, or less than half of that garnered by Hillary. The House has its pork King in John Murtha; Hillary, who expected a coronation in the Democratic primaries, certainly has won one as queen of pork spending.

Where did the money originate? Hillary has $130 million in the defense bill for 59 separate projects. Porking up defense spending in a time of war may seem bad enough, but Hillary doesn't stop there. She added $348 million in the Veteran Affairs spending bill, too. Almost all of these earmarks have Chuck Schumer as co-sponsor, perhaps as a wingman to shift blame when the appropriations came to light.

The Clintons prove once again that they have no interest in reforming government and ending corruption. After seven years in the Senate, they like the gravy train just the way it is, and Hillary apparently wants to be Chief Conductor. The race to pay off contributors and protect incumbencies has gone unabated by the Senator from New York, and one can imagine just how much she will amplify this as President.

Link to The Hill Article

Mo_Gearhead · 11-09-2007, 06:27 AM

Pork???? Blah.

I'm awaiting her book on Cattle Futures Investing!

Certainly seems she could assist all of us stupid investors with a 'tell-all' book on how to turn $1,000 into $100,000 so easily!

And why no follow up stories on how much this savvy futures investor has done since then??? After such monumental success, she surely didn't stop cold turkey????

Shaun @ Tru6 · 11-09-2007, 06:30 AM

While I strongly dislike Hillary Clinton, I hate intentionally misleading writing even more.

What does "successfully requested at least $530 million worth of projects." mean?

I successfully requested Spaghetti and Meatballs for dinner the other night, but I didn't get it.

if journalists on both sides want to be taken seriously, when they make allegations $XXX million in earmarks, it would be nice if they provided a list of what those earmarks were. From a bridge to nowhere to a lobster reproductive cycle study, I want to know who asked for what, who got what, and feel competent enough to discern true pork from real worthwhile projects when making my decision for whom to vote.

Wish someone would provide a C-Spanesque weekly summary email of what your local congressmen are up to in Washington.

Mo_Gearhead · 11-09-2007, 06:36 AM

QUOTE : "I successfuly requested Spaghetti and Meatballs for dinner the other night, but I didn't get it."
______________________

Wordplay.

If you didn't GET the meal you requested, you were NOT successful.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 11-09-2007, 06:39 AM

If I weren't so cynical and jaded, I'd agree, but I think the author used that phrase to intentionally mislead the reader.

304065 · 11-09-2007, 06:42 AM

It's like your favorite saloon, (well, in our case, a whole constellation of favorite saloons) where the bartender comps every third drink in return for a big tip. Give away the owner's booze to put capital in her own pocket. Not a bad strategy if it keeps you coming back, but hardly applicable when you're in charge of the public fisc.

"Compromise" is what it's all about in Washington. I want to direct Federal spending in a particular way and I need your vote to get it, so in return for your assent to my project, I'm going to "earmark" something for your constituent, who in turn was likely a big contributor to the campaign.

Boo hoo, don't like that said about your candidate, R or D? Put that in your NYT v. Sullivan, light it on fire and take a hit.

Mo_Gearhead · 11-09-2007, 06:51 AM

Quote: "Clinton has successfully requested at least $530 million worth of projects."
______________________

Are you saying you don't believe the money was actually spent on these projects?

legion · 11-09-2007, 06:54 AM

If a request is successful, it means you got what you wanted. Otherwise, it is an unsuccessful request.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 11-09-2007, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo_Gearhead

Quote: "Clinton has successfully requested at least $530 million worth of projects."
______________________

Are you saying you don't believe the money was actually spent on these projects?

Mo, doing a tiny bit of research, it looks more like she has earmarks in 2008 spending, and I don't believe these budgets have passed into law yet. Not saying they won't be, but that's the impression I get from a quick google search.

and to my point, a few bloggers said they approve of her defense spending earmarks and wondered why they weren't in the open as they seemed entirely appropriate.

I want to see what Congress is spending our money on. If I agree with my legislator's spending, earmarks or not, I can make a better decision when I vote.

Mo_Gearhead · 11-09-2007, 07:06 AM

Quote: "I want to see what Congress is spending our money on. If I agree with my legislator's spending, earmarks or not, I can make a better decision when I vote."
_______________

No argument there.

but ... if my Congressman/Senator gets all the millions sent to Missouri, how does voting out YOUR officials help?

All about who's ox is being gored.

So the dance continues.......

cairns · 11-09-2007, 07:30 AM

Then maybe you should start questioning the Democratic leadership (not that the Republicans haven't been gouging us too).

The earmark legislation "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007"’ passed earlier this year specifically disallowed open revelation of earmarks.

The changes included:

The old version (passed by the Senate) required conference / committee reports to list all earmarks and required the chairman of the relevant committee to distribute the earmark list.

The new version of the bill allows the Majority Leader (as opposed to the Senate parliamentarian, a more objective judge) to determine whether or not a conference report complies with the disclosure requirements.

The new version removes the requirement for earmark lists posted online to be in searchable format.

The new version removes the provision that prevented any bill from being considered at all prior to the disclosure of earmarks; now the text only prohibits a formal motion to proceed, which leaves open a procedural loophole that would allow bills to slip through without disclosure.

The old version prohibited earmarks which benefit a Member, their staff, or their family/their staff’s family.

The new version waters that down and only prohibits earmarks that would “only” affect those parties --- which means so long as you can make a case that your shiny new project affects at least one person other than you positively, you’re all set.

Murtha, Reid and Pelosi are three of the biggest earmark pigs in Government.

pwd72s · 11-09-2007, 08:22 AM

I shoulda saved it...a bumpersticker pic a friend emailed me. It reads:

LIFE IS A B!TCH
DON'T VOTE FOR ONE (pic of Hillary here)

KFC911 · 11-09-2007, 08:24 AM

Imagine if we only had Jewish politicians...wouldn't that end the pork spending

?. All politicians are "porker$" imo...every single one.

cairns · 11-09-2007, 09:35 AM

actaully I'm aware of one who isn't- Tom Coburn. Unfortunately he probably won't last long.

Seric · 11-09-2007, 09:42 AM

I don't really care how much money she successfully raises, finds, extorts, creates out of thin air, pulls out of Bill's a$$...she won't win.

At least, it's a feverant hope.

KFC911 · 11-09-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cairns

actaully I'm aware of one who isn't- Tom Coburn. Unfortunately he probably won't last long.

I'm not aware of Tom, if so, you're probably right. He'd better shape up, that'd set a TERRIBLE precedent for the others to follow.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Sen. Tom Coburn is THE anti-pork taxpayer hero of the Senate. I've posted several articles about him here. He is the kind of pol. we all wish we had. Not enough of him to go around. He is HATED and ignored by his colleagues.

BeyGon · 11-09-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seric

I don't really care how much money she successfully raises, finds, extorts, creates out of thin air, pulls out of Bill's a$$...she won't win.

At least, it's a feverant hope.

Many years ago I was watching a Democrat Senator at the Democrat Convention, he said, " I would vote for a yeller dog if it ran as a Democrat"
This year I would vote for a spotted toad if it was running against Hillary.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 11-09-2007, 11:11 AM

Tom Coburn's a good guy, there's no doubt about it. But it's pretty easy to be pork-free coming from a state like Oklahoma.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Do you think Hillary can top the current Pork King, who is currently spending >$1B a week?