Posted on 02/13/2008 9:03:45 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Democratic leaders have sent tens of millions of dollars to freshman lawmakers’ districts in hope of protecting the party’s newfound majority come November.
A new study of December’s omnibus spending package shows that the party in power has resisted pressure to abandon earmarking, at least to the extent of handing lawmakers in tough districts plenty of pet projects they can boast about to voters.
Democratic freshmen in the House were among the biggest recipients of earmarked funds, often surpassing much more senior colleagues by millions of dollars.
Republicans have made the practice of earmarking a major campaign theme and are likely to exploit the analysis done by the Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), a nonpartisan group that tracks federal spending. Even though several GOP members are among the biggest recipients of earmarked funds, for the first time in more than 10 years Democrats are collecting an overwhelming majority.
Take Rep. Phil Hare (D), a freshman from western Illinois. He received $92.2 million worth of earmarks, almost the same amount as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), according to the TCS analysis. The group compiled a database of every earmark passed in 2007.
Working with other lawmakers, Hare managed to attach his name to tens of thousands of dollars more in earmarks than Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Freshman Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) helped secure $69.9 million worth of earmarks, surpassing senior members of the Appropriations Committee such as Reps. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and even House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.).
Ellison steered millions back to his district by working closely with colleagues. He shared all of his earmarks with other lawmakers, while senior appropriators such as Mollohan, DeLauro and Wolf secured millions under their name alone.
“I’m not an opponent of earmarks,” said Ellison, at a time when a growing number of lawmakers in both parties have declared a moratorium on them. The latest to do so is Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Waxman helped secure $12.9 million in projects last year.
Ellison defended his hefty accumulation, noting that the money would go to gunshot-detection technology, which helps police locate a shooting quickly, and to a program to help children in foster homes.
Ellison said that while many freshmen may receive help from Democratic leaders because they are politically vulnerable, hard work was the secret to his own success.
“It’s not always a factor of being blessed by the leadership,” said Ellison, noting that Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, won Ellison’s district with more than 70 percent of the vote.
Democratic leaders, however, made sure that the most vulnerable freshmen also received tens of millions of dollars’ worth of projects.
Freshman Reps. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) and Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), two of the Republicans’ top political targets this year, were among the biggest beneficiaries. Lampson collected $15.2 million in earmarks by himself. Including projects he shared with colleagues, Lampson grabbed $42 million.
Boyda secured for herself an astonishing $20.7 million worth of projects. She shared another $17 million worth of projects with colleagues.
Senate Democratic leaders also doled out political protection money. Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), the chamber’s most vulnerable Democratic incumbent, shared $469.7 million worth of projects with colleagues, the chamber’s second highest total after that of Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.), the highest-ranking Republican on Appropriations.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) received more money in earmarks than did any senator who does not hold a position on the Appropriations Committee. Clinton’s name was attached to $342.4 million worth of earmarks, far more than her rival for the Democratic nomination. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) shared only $91.4 million worth of projects with his colleagues.
Though Clinton is only at the beginning of her second term, she surpassed more senior colleagues such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). It appears Clinton bolstered her total by attaching her name to just about every project sponsored by a member of the New York delegation.
Since losing control of Congress, an increasing number of Republicans have begun advocating for the abolition of earmarks. Two members of the Republican leadership, Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), did not seek any earmarks last year. Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), however, alone collected $23.6 million worth of earmarks. He shared another $22 million worth with colleagues.
Opponents of earmarking argue that the power to precisely target funds can lead to corruption as more and more lobbyists receive contracts to influence federal spending. These opponents also claim that such targeted funds are a haphazard way of spending money and reflect political power rather than the merit of the cause.
These arguments are beginning to gain more traction with Democrats. Democratic Sens. Russ Feingold (Wis.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) eschewed earmarked funds last year.
Taxpayers for Common Sense estimated that Democrats cut total spending on earmarks by 23 percent compared to 2005.
The Republicans' moral high ground here is really not very high.
Whomever wins the pres election in November, it certainly seems to my very untrained eye that the Dems will win Congress in an absolute bloodbath.
What did they Shower that new Muslim Congressman with...instead of Pork?? Smoked Beef?
RE-ELECT NO ONE!
The US. is governed by prostitutes.
mccain could make it an issue
Oh yeah, NOW. After they've lost their majority.
Perfect illustration of why we should clean our congressional houses. The whole system is corrupt and ineffective. The new guys/gals are elected and get sucked right into the system. I don’t know if any President can make a difference as long as we continue to elect congress critters of such low value.
Addendum: also a good illustration of why we should pull as much “governing” as possible away from congress and bring it to the local and state level. At least we can get our hands on those guys/gals. We can shout directly in their ears, we can push for enforcement of laws when they are corrupt and we can campaign against the useless easily and relatively cheaply.
Elections are advance auctions of stolen goods. Ambrose Bierce (IIRC).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.