Spokane7
65°
November 30, 2010 in Nation/World
Senate shuns push for elimination of pet projects
WASHINGTON — The Senate today rejected a GOP bid to ban the practice of larding spending bills with earmarks — those pet projects that lawmakers love to send home to their states.
Most Democrats and a handful of Republicans combined to defeat the effort, which would have effectively forbidden the Senate from considering legislation containing earmarks like road and bridge projects, community development funding, grants to local police departments and special-interest tax breaks.
The 39-56 tally, however, was a better showing for earmark opponents, who lost a 29-68 vote earlier this year. Any votes next year should be closer because a band of anti-earmark Republicans is joining the Senate.
Earlier this month, Republicans bowed to tea party activists and passed a party resolution declaring GOP senators would give up earmarks. House Republicans have also given up the practice, but most Democrats say earmarks are a legitimate way to direct taxpayer money to their constituents.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said today that Democrats had made the earmarking process far more transparent than it previously had been under GOP control of Congress. The reforms include requiring lawmakers to document every project they seek and receive.
Seven Democrats voted with all but eight Republicans to ban the practice.
“I believe I have an important responsibility to the state of Illinois and the people I represent to direct federal dollars into projects critically important for our state and its future,” Durbin said.
Critics say that peppering most spending bills with hundreds or even thousands of earmark projects creates a go-along-get-along mindset that ensures that Washington spending goes unchecked.
President Obama supports a ban as well, but hasn’t fought them in the past two years.
Opposition from Senate Republicans leaves Senate Democrats are the only faction of Congress in a position to try to save the practice of earmarking. But their position doesn’t seem very strong, since it’s difficult to see how House Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would allow any earmark-laden bills to pass.
McConnell had long been a strong supporter of earmarks — they were a big issue in his 2008 campaign — but reversed course shortly after the GOP’s big win in the midterm elections.
Estimates vary, but earmarks went from more than 1,300 projects worth nearly $8 billion in 1994 to a peak of nearly 14,000 projects worth more than $27 billion in 2005, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group that opposes the practice.
Democrats cut back the number and cost of earmarks somewhat. The new reforms that made the process more transparent have made it easier for outsiders to track a “pay-to-play” system in which lobbyists and corporate executives showered lawmakers with campaign funds in exchange for earmarks.
Ban sponsor Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said they can create “a conflict of interest that benefits just those we represent from our states or just those who help us become senators. All we have to do is look at campaign contributions and earmarks, and there is a stinky little secret associated with that.”
Supporters picked up new help from Democrats Michael Bennet and Mark Udall of Colorado, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Mark Warner of Virginia. At the same time, eight Republicans who were who opposed the ban in a vote in March now have joined with earmark opponents, including Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, and Olympia Snowe of Maine.
© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
johnclarke on November 30 at 9:18 a.m.
Shocking.
mikeln on November 30 at 10:34 a.m.
I can’t wait to see what replaces earmarks. The people we elect will not give them up, just hide them better from public view. I’m sure the republicans have a plan and the democrats will be sure to catch that bus. It would be nice to see everything on a stand alone bill but this would mean less time on the golf course with their special interest groups and more time at work. It could put golf out of buisness in Washington and end a lot of good minimum wage jobs.
misjustice on November 30 at 10:36 a.m.
So, the Senate votes to preserve and protect their power. How is this news? Lol!
; )
johnclarke on November 30 at 10:41 a.m.
The GOP (of hypocrites) love their earmarks, this is nothing but show.
Dazzeetrader11 on November 30 at 10:46 a.m.
This is your Democrat controlled Senate. SOmething tells me this is only the beginning. I wonder why they didn’t get the message sent 3 weeks ago. This is front page stuff…the people will remember. Summer’s coming. It begins then.
Dems seem helpless to control themselves.
misjustice on November 30 at 10:57 a.m.
They voted to protect/guard their power; if earmarks are deep sixed, it gives over a larger share of budgetary power to the Executive.
I doubt if the Rs will be able to get this through in the “new” congress. But it will be fun watching them cry on C-Span…
; )
liberal_in_right_wing_land on November 30 at 11:06 a.m.
If the republicans really cared about cutting the federal debt they would go after something that accounts for more than 1% of the federal budget. Banning earmarks will not even make a dent in the budget, this whole issue is a huge waste of time when we have bigger more pressing issues to deal with. But then the GOP only goes after the issues Fox News tell them to.
johnclarke on November 30 at 11:16 a.m.
Well Daisy - your GOP can set a good example and not accept any earmarks. We saw how well that worked with the stimulus funds. They criticize in public, and beg for the money in private.
As far as the “message” I say pffft. American voters are funny like that. Presidents generally lose one or more house at the midterm.
SpokaneLiberal on November 30 at 11:18 a.m.
To make a dent in the budget there are only 4 things that make any difference.
1. Social Security
2. Medicare
3. Defense
4. Taxes/Tax Cuts/Loopholes/Deductions
Nothing else really matters in balancing the budget. Period.
That being said I don’t mind the idea of banning earmarks, I don’t love it as I see it as a way to cut through the bureaucratic BS but I don’t hate it either.
Diana on November 30 at 11:51 a.m.
Oh, for sure, Daisy. Especially since its the little Republican piggies who lead the pack in seeking and accepting pork in both the House and Senate.
Oink, oink!
mauijim on November 30 at 12:26 p.m.
Here pork, pork, pork, pork
MrNatural on November 30 at 2:33 p.m.
Once when I was a kid got one heck of an ear mark from Sister Claretta Joseph at St. Lawrence Catholic School…
Can’t we see what this funding is primarily about?…it’s typically for some needed upgrades and infrastructure in local communities who do not have these kinds of funds. I’m sure there are more than a few private contractors who welcome these funds and the employment they provide. All that needs to be done is better scrutiny to avoid graft and frivolity
mikeln on November 30 at 4:03 p.m.
Mr. Natural has it right, we need to make sure that people do not make more then they can spend in a lifetime doing one road project over the summer. In fact, all other government projects need to be looked at to prevent some well connected person from profiting in this manner. Look at the tax cuts some got in Idaho and the prosecuter says no laws were broken, if this is the case the laws themselves are broken. I think that on the federal level stuff like this goes on all the time because the laws are broken and nobody is really watching.
Dazzeetrader11 on November 30 at 4:23 p.m.
liberal says:
“1. Social Security
2. Medicare
3. Defense
4. Taxes/Tax Cuts/Loopholes/Deductions
Nothing else really matters in balancing the budget. Period.
That being said I don’t mind the idea of banning earmarks, I don’t love it as I see it as a way to cut through the bureaucratic BS but I don’t hate it either. ”
We’ll see if the liberal Dems have the stomach for it. I bet they don’t. Repubs were hired to do those things. They’ll do just what they were hired to do. Only reason Dems are now interested is to keep their jobs…They’d spend to oblivion otherwise. Remember November!
$30 Billion in annual earmarks DO matter. Every year! Stop those…It adds up.
Get those knives out America! It’ll be tough for a while. but its the only real way to right the ship. Only cautionary note is that those cuts must be done,.not all at once..but gradually, Cutting taxes will help too. For everyone. Supply side…it’s the only way while the spending is cut..
misjustice on November 30 at 6:40 p.m.
Supply side, aka Trickle Down, and tax cuts for the top 2% is what has lead us to the precipice.
Diana on November 30 at 7:50 p.m.
“Repubs were hired to do those things. They’ll do just what they were hired to do.”
Bagger, please. Don’t drive tonight.
greenlibertarian on November 30 at 8:11 p.m.
Earmarks were infinitesimal until the Republicans took over in 2000, then they went through the roof.
And they’re not $30B this year, more like $20B but then Daisy never met a fact she didn’t lie about.