Most of us know about the "Freshman 15", a colloquialism that refers to the amount of weight many college freshmen gain during their first year in college as a result of not exercising proper dietary discipline (and gaining easy access to beer, no doubt).
Given that Congress typically lacks even the most rudimentary sense of fiscal discipline and that we have a new crop of Democratic freshmen who are facing their first House re-election cycle this year, it comes as no surprise that these freshman have, like their collegiate counterparts, acquired more than a little pork during their first year+ in office.
Democratic freshmen in the House were among the biggest recipients of earmarked funds, often surpassing much more senior colleagues by millions of dollars.
…
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.).
Democrats came into office promising a change in the way the Congress was going to do its business along with changes in military policy among others. They have failed to keep virtually every one of those promises, although it must be said that their failure to pull America’s troops out of Iraq is for the best.
Not so with their spending habits. “I’m not an opponent of earmarks,” said Keith Ellison. That didn’t stop him from making out like a bandit, though.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
While earmarks are still part of the "wheeling and dealing" the last sentence in the article is important.
It was during the Repuglicans reign of corruption that earmarks really took off.
it is irrelevant, nothing more than an excuse. Pork spending is Pork Spending, no matter the % it was in comparison to previous years. All it proves is the Dem’s lied on their Campaign slogans and are also incompetent.
Interest – Where was your outrage when the Republicans increased spending and earkarks from 2000 till now. At least the Demonocrats are reversing the trend.
I have read that earmarks are (more or less) federal tax money, paid via our taxes, that a state gets to spend, nd if not spent by the state (earmarked) for a particular project, then the money goes back to the federal bucket to be spent. I have also heard that earmarks are, money that that are requests from Congressman for ADDITIONAL federal money (for example, a request for federal money to build a new park) Are either of these correct?
It figures my congressman Phil Hare would be in that batch. He probably took all the money then spent it on donuts.
Search back in threads and you’ll find it. Until then interesting definition of the term reversing. Earmarks are earmarks – no matter what pretty label the worthless congressional leadership we have (and supporters who actually write in support of them on this issue) would like to call it.
Not all earmarks are bad, putting a hospital or road where all benefit is a good example. But Pelosi’s funding for a hospital where it wasn’t needed, or used, or Hassert’s road to his subdivision are bad pork.
So the decrease in waste must be totally ignored because the dems promised further improvements… Heck, I thought right-wingers were of a pragmatic, not idealistic nature these days.