Wilgrove
14-03-2008, 08:38
Senate defeats earmark moratorium
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly shot down an effort Thursday night to ban "earmark" spending for one year -- quashing an effort backed by all three senators seeking the presidency.
The measure -- an amendment to the Senate's 2009 budget act -- failed on a vote of 29-71.
Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted in favor of the amendment.
"We're disappointed that only 29 members of the U.S. Senate understand that the American people want us to stop this practice, which has led to corruption," McCain said.
Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for his constituency, added onto often unrelated government spending bills.
Earlier, Obama made public his requests for earmarks, after McCain challenged him and Clinton on the spending measures.
McCain had urged his Democratic rivals to reveal the earmarks they've asked for and turn back the money that hasn't been spent yet.
The Obama camp then joined McCain in calling for Clinton to release her requests.
Earmarks that are approved are a matter of public record, but information about earmark requests that do not get approved can currently come only from the legislators themselves.
The Clinton campaign was asked about earmarks on a press call Thursday afternoon before Obama released his requests. Clinton's Senate office released a statement and set up a Web page containing links to news releases about funding secured for New York projects.
It did not provide any information about earmarks that were not approved.
"Senator Clinton will limit requests for earmarks this year to the most critical needs for New York and America such as providing health care for those suffering from the effects of 9/11, bolstering our national and homeland security, and providing our brave men and women in uniform with the resources they need to achieve their missions," the statement said. "Senator Clinton is proud of the investments in New York that she has secured as senator."
McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and the Democratic candidates all interrupted their campaign schedules to make Thursday's vote.
The three White House hopefuls supported the moratorium, even though key senators on both sides opposed it.
McCain, who has refused to request spending for projects in his home state of Arizona, has long been a vocal critic of earmarks.
Clinton and Obama announced this week they favor the ban, despite their own use of earmarks.
McCain said the Democratic presidential candidates are late to the anti-earmarks position, saying both have requested earmarks using taxpayer dollars "that are absolutely outrageously wasted."
"I think they should ask that those earmarks that they asked for and obtained -- the money that hasn't been spent yet -- ask them to turn that money back to the Treasury," McCain said.
Obama's press office questioned why Clinton has not released her earmark requests, saying "If Sen. Clinton will not agree to join Sen. Obama in releasing her earmark requests, voters should ask why she doesn't believe they have the right to know [how] she wants to spend their tax dollars."
Clinton grabbed $342 million worth of earmarks last year, ranking her 10th highest on the list of senators, according to the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. But as of Thursday, the Clinton campaign still had not released details on how much she requested for 2007 and what it was for.
The senator "is proud of the investments in New York she has secured," according to her spokesman Philippe Reines. But she believes the one-year ban "will allow a hard look at how more sunlight and transparency can be brought to this process," Reines added.
Obama in fiscal year 2008 secured $98 million in funding for Illinois projects, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Information released Thursday by the Obama campaign indicates he requested $311 million in earmarks for the same year.
Also according to information released Thursday by the Obama camp, the Illinois senator had 138 earmark requests for the 2007 fiscal year.
His total requested funding was about $330 million. His average request was about $2.4 million, with the largest request being $62 million intended to modify a Boeing 747 aircraft to capture infrared images of the earth.
In a statement this week, Obama complained that earmarks are doled out based on a lawmaker's seniority, not the merit of a project, and that many of the projects "fail to address the real needs of our country."
Earmark opponents pushed for the ban after watching Congress approve an increasing number of special projects in recent years.
Last year, Congress approved 12,884 earmarks. While the budget watchdog group said that figure is down from an all-time high in 2005, it still represents more than $18 billion in spending.
Opponents of earmarks argue that special projects not only waste money but also can lead to corruption, pointing to former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-California. Now imprisoned, Cunningham received bribes in return for earmarks related to defense contracts.
Defenders of earmarks, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, say earmarks -- or "congressionally directed spending" as they prefer to call them -- are an important congressional prerogative that ensure home-state needs aren't overlooked by Washington bureaucrats. Reid also has blamed Republicans for the explosion of earmarks when they controlled Congress.
He said Democrats went a long way in correcting the system with a bill last year that required lawmakers to put their name on the earmarks they request and to promise they have no financial stake in the projects.
The earmark ban, offered by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, was voted on as an amendment to the 2009 budget resolution.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, is weighing a similar proposal and is expected to announce this week whether the House of Representatives also will institute a one-year ban.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/earmark.vote/index.html)
So the Senate had a chance to reduce their spending, and to actually practice fiscal conservatives values, and they decided to vote it down. From the three Presidential candidate, Mc. Cain seem to be the only one who really does speak honestly about being fiscal conservative, Obama and Clinton are for earmarks, but since they're running for President, they have reversed their choices to try to appeal to those who want gov. co. to cut back on it's spending.
and the power of Gov. Co. grows.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly shot down an effort Thursday night to ban "earmark" spending for one year -- quashing an effort backed by all three senators seeking the presidency.
The measure -- an amendment to the Senate's 2009 budget act -- failed on a vote of 29-71.
Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted in favor of the amendment.
"We're disappointed that only 29 members of the U.S. Senate understand that the American people want us to stop this practice, which has led to corruption," McCain said.
Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for his constituency, added onto often unrelated government spending bills.
Earlier, Obama made public his requests for earmarks, after McCain challenged him and Clinton on the spending measures.
McCain had urged his Democratic rivals to reveal the earmarks they've asked for and turn back the money that hasn't been spent yet.
The Obama camp then joined McCain in calling for Clinton to release her requests.
Earmarks that are approved are a matter of public record, but information about earmark requests that do not get approved can currently come only from the legislators themselves.
The Clinton campaign was asked about earmarks on a press call Thursday afternoon before Obama released his requests. Clinton's Senate office released a statement and set up a Web page containing links to news releases about funding secured for New York projects.
It did not provide any information about earmarks that were not approved.
"Senator Clinton will limit requests for earmarks this year to the most critical needs for New York and America such as providing health care for those suffering from the effects of 9/11, bolstering our national and homeland security, and providing our brave men and women in uniform with the resources they need to achieve their missions," the statement said. "Senator Clinton is proud of the investments in New York that she has secured as senator."
McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and the Democratic candidates all interrupted their campaign schedules to make Thursday's vote.
The three White House hopefuls supported the moratorium, even though key senators on both sides opposed it.
McCain, who has refused to request spending for projects in his home state of Arizona, has long been a vocal critic of earmarks.
Clinton and Obama announced this week they favor the ban, despite their own use of earmarks.
McCain said the Democratic presidential candidates are late to the anti-earmarks position, saying both have requested earmarks using taxpayer dollars "that are absolutely outrageously wasted."
"I think they should ask that those earmarks that they asked for and obtained -- the money that hasn't been spent yet -- ask them to turn that money back to the Treasury," McCain said.
Obama's press office questioned why Clinton has not released her earmark requests, saying "If Sen. Clinton will not agree to join Sen. Obama in releasing her earmark requests, voters should ask why she doesn't believe they have the right to know [how] she wants to spend their tax dollars."
Clinton grabbed $342 million worth of earmarks last year, ranking her 10th highest on the list of senators, according to the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. But as of Thursday, the Clinton campaign still had not released details on how much she requested for 2007 and what it was for.
The senator "is proud of the investments in New York she has secured," according to her spokesman Philippe Reines. But she believes the one-year ban "will allow a hard look at how more sunlight and transparency can be brought to this process," Reines added.
Obama in fiscal year 2008 secured $98 million in funding for Illinois projects, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Information released Thursday by the Obama campaign indicates he requested $311 million in earmarks for the same year.
Also according to information released Thursday by the Obama camp, the Illinois senator had 138 earmark requests for the 2007 fiscal year.
His total requested funding was about $330 million. His average request was about $2.4 million, with the largest request being $62 million intended to modify a Boeing 747 aircraft to capture infrared images of the earth.
In a statement this week, Obama complained that earmarks are doled out based on a lawmaker's seniority, not the merit of a project, and that many of the projects "fail to address the real needs of our country."
Earmark opponents pushed for the ban after watching Congress approve an increasing number of special projects in recent years.
Last year, Congress approved 12,884 earmarks. While the budget watchdog group said that figure is down from an all-time high in 2005, it still represents more than $18 billion in spending.
Opponents of earmarks argue that special projects not only waste money but also can lead to corruption, pointing to former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-California. Now imprisoned, Cunningham received bribes in return for earmarks related to defense contracts.
Defenders of earmarks, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, say earmarks -- or "congressionally directed spending" as they prefer to call them -- are an important congressional prerogative that ensure home-state needs aren't overlooked by Washington bureaucrats. Reid also has blamed Republicans for the explosion of earmarks when they controlled Congress.
He said Democrats went a long way in correcting the system with a bill last year that required lawmakers to put their name on the earmarks they request and to promise they have no financial stake in the projects.
The earmark ban, offered by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, was voted on as an amendment to the 2009 budget resolution.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, is weighing a similar proposal and is expected to announce this week whether the House of Representatives also will institute a one-year ban.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/earmark.vote/index.html)
So the Senate had a chance to reduce their spending, and to actually practice fiscal conservatives values, and they decided to vote it down. From the three Presidential candidate, Mc. Cain seem to be the only one who really does speak honestly about being fiscal conservative, Obama and Clinton are for earmarks, but since they're running for President, they have reversed their choices to try to appeal to those who want gov. co. to cut back on it's spending.
and the power of Gov. Co. grows.