Huckleberries Online

Fisher: Idaho Enjoys Earmarks, Too

Posted by DFO

March 11, 2009 9:09 a.m. • 13 comments

Idahoans unhappy with all the earmarks in the big spending bill now before the U.S. Senate have a lot of people to blame, including the members of their own congressional delegation. Make that their own congressional delegation of last year. As the Obama administration correctly points out, to the derision of some, the bill was assembled before the new Congress, and the new president, assumed office. That means freshman Democrat Walt Minnick is responsible for none of the earmarks, but, as his predecessor’s former press secretary points out, the four Republicans then in office - also not including freshman Sen. Jim Risch - are. (Bill Sali, Mike Simpson, Mike Crapo and Larry Craig are responsible for 65 earmarks specific to Idaho, totaling more than $69 million)/Jim Fisher, Lewiston Tribune. More here.

Question: Are you surprised that last year’s conservative congressional delegation from Idaho is responsible for more than $69 million in earmarks in this year’s federal budget?

13 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

toadman on March 11 at 9:51 a.m.
No.. earmarks are bipartisan, and always have been. Both parties are guilty.

Remember, to the person earmarking funds for a pet project, it’s NOT an earmark, but a “much needed and helpful project that wil bring light and hope and happy fluttering butterflies to my district.” It’s EVERYONE ELSE’S project that’s an earmark….right?

This blame game b.s. is getting old. Let it go. This is last years business. Finish it and move on…the money is most likely encumbered and costs already sunk anyway.
Arch_Druid on March 11 at 9:54 a.m.
No, I am not in the least surprised by such a revelation. I am only surprised that the people screaming the most about earmarks, whether GOP members of Congress to those who suddenly remember what “fiscal responsibility” is all about among the faithful didn’t bother informing themselves of the facts. Or should I be? Political scapegoating is the in thing these days. Failing to be honest about one’s own investments re earmarks to the state is also the in thing to do. Which makes the Mix and Match thread at “A Matter of Opinion” also a matter of utter irony. Risch complains about too much spending and an increase in gvt, which as revealed above, was also OK’d by previous Republican members of Congress. Talk about taking out the long knives against your own. Now what earmarks did Risch want put in the spending bill?
Transplanted_Texan on March 11 at 9:54 a.m.
Well, Simpson’s on the Appropriations Committee, sooo… no.

It’s an earmark if it’s in someone else’s district. It’s a constituent service if it’s in your own. Conservatism has nothing to do with it.

And honestly, what’s with the obsession over $7 billion when the overall bill is $410 billion anyway? Way to take your eye off the ball, McCain.
BlueinIdaho on March 11 at 10:28 a.m.
Saying “Earmark” lately is akin to saying “Roundabout” in Canyon County. Most people there have never seen one, don’t understand how they work and are dead certain they’re an awful use of money….but end up benefitting from them nonetheless.
Bent on March 11 at 10:40 a.m.
Here is the scoop on the earmark dilema in DC. It’s a good read and it is interesting to note that this issue has strong ties to our region’s political structure.

http://mobile.thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-waits-for-obamas-move-to-reform-earmarks-2009-03-11.html

I have a little experience on this issue, and it’s important to understand that this issue is not about saving money at all.

This is all about who gets to appropriate the taxes we have already paid into the Federal coffers. There are essentially three choices:

Congress = earmarks

Administration = no earmarks; federal discretionary grants instead

States = no earmarks, block grants to states that, in turn, make the decision on how those funds are distributed.
Bent on March 11 at 10:49 a.m.
Obama just outlined his five earmark reform guidelines, and closed with this statement:

“Now, let me be clear,” Obama said. “Done right, earmarks give legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their district, and that’s why I have opposed their outright elimination.”

Here is the story:

http://mobile.thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-lays-out-five-steps-to-mend-earmarks-2009-03-11.html
poolman on March 11 at 11:21 a.m.
Earmarks = Campaign support
Campaign support =winning elections
Winning elections = Earmarks

It’s pretty simple logic really (not a party issue at all)

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.