Politicians and mainstream media, especially Republicans and other opponents of the new administration, are all aflutter concerning the earmarks in President Obama's first budget. This morning, The Clarion-Ledger declared: "Candidate Barack Obama didn't like earmarks, but President Obama's first budget is full of them."

Congressional earmarks, however, represent less than 1 percent of the $410 billion omnibus budget, something less than "full of." Let me say it again: earmarks, added by Congress, make up less than 1 percent of the budget.

That's not to say that there's no room for improvement, but please: Let's keep this in perspective.

The overall bill, which Congress has yet to approve, represents an 8 percent increase in federal spending. Earmarks became a favorite political whipping boy for many because if not done in a transparent manner, they can hide favors for lobbyists and special interests. They are, however, a legitimate way to fund necessary state projects, including higher education, infrastructure improvements and research.

Despite Republican outrage, GOP members inserted more than 40 percent of the earmarks in the budget, with Mississippi's own Thad Cochran in the lead, according to the Huffington Post

Mississippi Republican Sen. Thad Cochran led his colleagues by raking in more than $470 million in 204 earmarks. Mississippi's junior Republican, Roger Wicker, pulled in more than $390 million. The totals can't be added together because the figure includes earmarks each received solo and with others, so the same earmark could be in both senators' column. Cochran, on his own, pulled in roughly $76 million and Wicker brought home $4 million.

Cochran's $76 million ranks him sixth among solo earmarkers. (Earmarks can be requested individually, with other members of Congress or along with the president.)

The story goes on to say that while Senate Dems and Repubs "ate roughly the same amount from the government trough on a solo basis," Dems have one and a half times the members.

Maybe its time politicians stopped speaking with forked tongues, and mainstream media to stop buying into their indignant blustering. It's a dream, I know.

Previous Comments

ID

144254

Comment

The Clarion-Ledger declared: “Candidate Barack Obama didn’t like earmarks, but President Obama’s first budget is full of them.” Congressional earmarks, however, represent less than 1 percent of the $410 billion omnibus budget, something less than “full of.” Let me say it again: earmarks, added by Congress, make up less than 1 percent of the budget. "Full of"? The Ledger is nothing if not blustering ... and bumbling. BTW, have they ever run editorials against Thad Cochran being the earmark king? Just wondering ...

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T11:30:50-06:00

ID

144302

Comment

Here's a link to the original story and data posted by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-03-03T18:09:05-06:00

ID

144398

Comment

Media General has picked up the budget earmarks drama, including the fact that our very own Sen. Thad Cochran is the earmark king, with Roger Wicker playing the prince: Mississippi’s two Republican senators – Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker - are the top two recipients of earmarked dollars for projects in the bill. According to the group, Cochran was able to get 65 earmarks in the bill for a total of $76 million. In all though, Cochran’s name was attached to 204 earmarks totaling $471 million in spending for projects. Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said that as the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Cochran is able to steer dollars toward Mississippi. “It puts him in a perfect perch to be able to grab as much of the bacon and send it home to Mississippi and he’s certainly taken advantage of that,” Ellis said. ... Wicker wasn’t as successful earmarking funds on his own and was able to get nine earmarks into the bill for a total of $4 million. But he joined with other members of Congress to support 143 earmarks for projects and programs totaling $391 million. ... Ellis said members of Congress who earmark are making the assumption that other areas of the country don’t need that money even more. “They’re essentially substituting their judgment for rational, merit based thinking on what should be funded,” he said. “… The powerful get the most money and then it trickles down.” So for our two esteemed U.S. senators, we can deduce that earmarks are not OK unless they're our earmarks. Many of us are still waiting on that "trickle down" effect, too. Some have been waiting since Reagan.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-03-05T19:02:09-06:00

ID

144452

Comment

Demonizing earmarks is wasted energy. You could eliminate every earmark and it wouldn't bring the deficit under control.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-03-06T20:39:37-06:00

ID

144459

Comment

People may decry about earmarks, but when it comes to their own districts, they're all good.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2009-03-07T11:25:19-06:00

ID

144463

Comment

Some earmarks do have value. The fact is many of the earmarked construction projects that will be funded under the stimulus and omnibus spending bills are necessary. The ones that aren't should have been taken out, but constitute a minuscule portion of the entire budget.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-03-08T12:55:49-06:00