Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

A new metric: Earmarks

By

Clinton winning by a landslide; $2.3B to $0.0.

Clinton: $2.3B in earmarks

By Manu Raju and Kevin Bogardus  

Posted: 04/28/08 08:08 PM [ET]  

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year.

The Democratic presidential candidate’s staggering request comes at a time when Congress remains engaged in a heated debate over spending federal dollars on parochial projects.

It also has gained traction on the campaign trail. Presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a longtime foe of earmarks, has called for eliminating what he dubs “wasteful Washington spending.” Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has spurned earmarks, seeking no funds for pet projects in the upcoming fiscal year.

Yet Clinton is continuing to request billions for earmarks, most of which will go to her home state.

The money is needed for homeland security, emergency response and health projects throughout New York, according to documents provided by her office.

The total amount Clinton requested greatly surpasses the $837 million secured last year by Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee who took home the largest dollar amount of earmarks in the current fiscal year’s spending bills. In those bills, Clinton secured $342 million in earmarks.  

Clinton’s huge earmark requests have some speculating that the former first lady is preparing for a soft landing should she lose the Democratic primary to Obama and refocus her energy on winning a third Senate term.

-snip

(h/t Ben Smith)

Update: Added the hotlink!

 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. A previous point:
    Clinton Dynasty & Federal Pork (2.2 Billion)  

    by: John from Lowell
    Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:16:37 AM EST

    Hillary Clinton Reigns as Queen of Federal Pork

    By Kevin Hassett
    Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) — Democrats came into power this year promising meaningful earmark reform to a U.S. electorate that was rightly disgusted with Congress’s free-spending habits. Today, earmarks continue to be out of control, and the predictable result is that the Democratic Congress is now even less popular in national polls than the Republican one before it.
    There is an underappreciated angle to the story of how lawmakers steer federal funds toward their pet projects that may yet swing the next presidential election. Democrats have been so busy preparing the coronation of Hillary Clinton that they have failed to train a critical eye on her record.
    When it comes to earmarks, an issue that voters responded to more than any other in the last election except for Iraq, her record is about as bad as it gets. If Dennis Hastert was the king of earmarks, Hillary Clinton was his queen. Republicans had their “bridge to nowhere.” Hillary has her knitting mill.

    The statistics speak for themselves. Ever since she arrived in Washington, Hillary has worked tirelessly to bring the pork home to her adopted state, New York. It used to be that such efforts were cloaked in secrecy. No longer.

    (snip)
    On the Democratic side, however, the major candidates have been much less forthright.

    Only Barack Obama has voluntarily made his earmark information publicly available.

     

  2. why does the article keep comparing the amount Clinton “requested” with the amount “received” or “secured” by others?  That’s obviously an apples to oranges comparison.  How much did Cochran ask for last year?

    • This article is a look ahead and they speculate that she is trying to break her fall.

      <

      p>For me it also ties into the difference between her, Edwards and Obama. Going back to Yearly Kos 2007, Clinton has been on the ropes about the “culture of influence” inside the beltway. imo.

  3. assuming it had to do with earmarks in the MA state budget, which would have been of interest.  Instead, yet another hit piece on Clinton.  How I wish the primary was done with.

    <

    p>Since I have a daughter who lives in NYC, I’m rather fond of earmarks for “homeland security, emergency response and health projects” if they relate to keeping the city safe, healthy and prepared in case of another attack.  I would guess that all of the above are severely underfunded by this administration (ala FEMA), and it is the Senator’s job to look after her state.  From that very same article, comes this quote:

    <

    p>

    Clinton said she would limit her requests this year to healthcare resources for victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, as well as for national security and homeland security needs, according to Reines.

    “The funds requested are for critical needs for New York and America, and are appropriate and necessary,” Reines said.

    <

    p>Also, we find this:

    <

    p>

    Clinton, Obama and McCain voted for an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), that would establish a one-year earmark moratorium. That amendment failed to pass, however, when it came to a vote in March.

    <

    p>If the Senator is responsible for providing services in the largest metropolitan city in the country and funding is insufficient, maybe earmarks are the only way to get what’s needed for her constituents.  But, hey, it’s just another opening for an attack on the bitch.  Who cares about details one way or another?  It’s hunting season.  

    <

    p>

  4. I’d simply say; ‘Yo! Don’t vote for Hillary because I don’t trust her as far as I can throw them. Bill and her already had their shot and they earned a B-. Plus the whole impeachment thing is bothersome.’
    I would, but most people need more convincing.

    <

    p>Now, I don’t begrudge how Mrs.Clinton wields her femininity. As she said “it takes a village” and sometimes it does take a bitch. (I’d say more power to her, but that is my hang up with the Clintons)

    <

    p>Anywho, she’s better then McCain, but she hasn’t pushed the bar much higher, imho.

    <

    p>She is running on the fumes of Bill’s presidency. It is time for them to step aside.

    • You don’t trust Hillary and you find the impeachment thing bothersome.  Now that I know, I need no other reason to  ask a serious candidate to step aside.  Thanks ever so much for clarifying and for making such a profound contribution to the echo chamber.

        • Demeaning my post with the shadow of the republican party.

          <

          p>It’s all good. I frequently post to tweak. I can hang.

              • is one of my favorite candidates in this race because he speaks truth, knowledge and wisdom.  He’s the only reason I watched the early debates.  I decided on Clinton when I began to realize that Obama might have a casino plan for the nation.  Sorry to disappoint you.  I still have great respect for Mike’s experience and what he has tried to do in this campaign.    

Archives