Republican earmark hypocrites

The Coffee Shop
1

Here’s a list of disgusted Senators who voted against the spending bill because it was full of pork…also attached is a list of the pork they themselves put in it. I count 27 Republicans and one Democrat.

fact file Opposing senators’ earmarks Of the 35 U.S. senators who opposed the omnibus spending bill, 28 of them had a total of 307 solo earmarks in the legislation, costing nearly $240 million. Scroll to see a breakdown.

Senator Earmarks Total
John Barrasso, R-Wyo. 4 $2.7 million
Evan Bayh, D-Ind. 4 $1.2 million
Bob Bennett, R-Utah 23 $18 million
Sam Brownback, R-Kan. 21 $12 million
Jim Bunning, R-Ky. 5 $735,000
Richard Burr, R-N.C. 3 $1.3 million
Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. 7 $4.3 million
Susan Collins, R-Maine 1 $380,000
Bob Corker, R-Tenn. 1 $760,000
John Cornyn, R-Texas 5 $2.5 million
Mike Crapo, R-Idaho 1 $100,000
Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. 5 $1.7 million
Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. 14 $9.5 million
Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa 8 $350,000
Judd Gregg, R-N.H. 19 $10 million
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah 7 $700,000
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas 35 $9.9 million
Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. 34 $53 million
Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. 2 $1.4 million
Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. 3 $5 million
Richard Lugar, R-Ind. 10 $3.3 million
Mel Martinez, R-Fla. 8 $18.8 million
Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. 36 $51 million
Pat Roberts, R-Kan. 11 $2.2 million
Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. 12 $4.3 million
John Thune, R-S.D. 6 $4.3 million
David Vitter, R-La. 16 $4 million
George Voinovich, R-Ohio 6 $13.5 million

2

So I guess by your logic, since everyone is doing it, it doesn’t make Obama a total hypocrite.

3 
Haven't looked into this at all, but it could be that some got their earmarks in at another time, fiscally, and given the spending explosion since then, are (finally) taking a stand against the spending spree.   Realistically, it's probably just politics.
4

Thats an admirable bit of spinmeistering there Dave admirable and laughable at the same time.

They put the pork in before they knew we had a deficit and now they are against it. riiiiiight.

5

The hypocrisy is astounding. How does Lindsey Graham look at himself in the mirror without laughing?

http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/qt/7509/26507

6

What would have been nice is if they would have pulled their earmarks and let Obama sign the bill with with Dem earmarks only. But they didn’t so they are just as guilty as the rest of the little piggys feeding at the trough.

7

I heard Ron Paul talk about this once. Someone challenged him on his support of earmarks while calling for less government spending. His position is that Congress should be directing how money is spent, not a non-elected bureaucrat at some agency. So while he does not support government spending, he does think that Congress has an obligation to make sure the money is being spent the way they voted for it to be spent.

8

Haven’t looked into this at all, but it could be that some got their earmarks in at another time, fiscally, and given the spending explosion since then, are (finally) taking a stand against the spending spree. Realistically, it’s probably just politics.

So they were for it before they were against it?

:wink:

9

What would have been nice is if they would have pulled their earmarks and let Obama sign the bill with with Dem earmarks only.

It would have been perfect but they didn’t have the guts.

Shame on Obama for not standing up and taking a stand, he really had his chance. I heard him say “from now on we will remove earmarks”, what a joke.

I applaud McCain’s stance but in reality, if he were elected it would have been the same result. You can say all you want when you are not in power but when push comes to shove, they are all looking out for their own interest.

Country First will always be just a sloggan for the campaign trail.

10

And we wonder why Ron Paul only got 2% of the vote in his run for the White House.

11

I heard Ron Paul talk about this once. Someone challenged him on his support of earmarks while calling for less government spending. His position is that Congress should be directing how money is spent, not a non-elected bureaucrat at some agency. So while he does not support government spending, he does think that Congress has an obligation to make sure the money is being spent the way they voted for it to be spent.

Two things:

  • at least with earmarks we know what the project is and who to praise or blame.
  • effectively, the stimulus package just gave more power to every Obama appointee, allowing ALL the distribution decisions to be made by his people.
12

Thats an admirable bit of spinmeistering there Dave admirable and laughable at the same time.

They put the pork in before they knew we had a deficit and now they are against it. riiiiiight.

Well we know that virtually all the the pubs voted against the stimulus bill, and here’s a list of those who voted against TARP, so there are some who seem to be alarmed at the rate of spending.

Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

13

Earmarks are a bit like the term socialist, they both get demonized and thrown around ad neaseum but people don’t really have a frickin clue what they are ranting about.

As long as politicans are elected officials the motivation to get money for his/her people will always be there and frankly I think anyone who thinks earmarks will go away are living in a dreamworld. The goal should simply be to make it as transparent and “honest” as possible.

14

The goal should simply be to make it as transparent and “honest” as possible.

and also as rare as possible.

But that is the main problem we have with earmarks/pork.

A bill is proposed to save the whales/children or whatever and 1000 unrelated stipulations are thrown in. It makes it impossible for a congress person to vote intelligently, and even more impossible for a citizen to know what the hell is going on and make informed decisions when election time rolls around.

15

Well we know that virtually all the the pubs voted against the stimulus bill, and here’s a list of those who voted against TARP, so there are some who seem to be alarmed at the rate of spending.

Cross checking with Matt’s list shows the following Senators voted against both. I think Brownback and Inhofe are “alarmed at the rate of spending”, except when it comes to their own states.
Inhofe’s $53M was the largest of all the earmarks for Repubs.

Senator Earmarks Total and those that voted against TARP:
Sam Brownback, R-Kan. 21 $12 million
Jim Bunning, R-Ky. 5 $735,000
Mike Crapo, R-Idaho 1 $100,000
Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. 5 $1.7 million
Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. 34 $53 million
Pat Roberts, R-Kan. 11 $2.2 million
Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. 12 $4.3 million
David Vitter, R-La. 16 $4 million

16

Two things. First, Ron Paul has been very clear on his objection to earmarks and government spending in general. However, he was elected to congress by people who are forced to pay taxes for these things. Since he is not in a position to stop the earmarks/spending, he is at least going to make sure his constituency gets back what they are forced to put in.
Second, it does not surprise me at all that a large number of Republicans put pork into the bill. The Republicans knew the Democrats wanted their support for the stimulus and wanted to see how much they could get for their votes. Earmarks are an extremely effective way of bribing politicians opposed to your legislation into supporting it. So yes, there are plenty of Republican earmarks in the bill but they are in there because the Democrats hoped allowing those earmarks would get them the Republican votes they needed to pass the stimulus.

17

How many ran for office 4 months ago with a pledge to cut earmarks?

It’s a wonder how in 4 months Change now means the same.

18

you don’t have to look back for 4 month old votes. they voted NO yesterday on earmarks, earmarks that they themselves put in.

i don’t know if they are morons or hypocrites, but they sure are funny.

19

Two things. First, Ron Paul has been very clear on his objection to earmarks and government spending in general. However, he was elected to congress by people who are forced to pay taxes for these things. Since he is not in a position to stop the earmarks/spending, he is at least going to make sure his constituency gets back what they are forced to put in.
Second, it does not surprise me at all that a large number of Republicans put pork into the bill. The Republicans knew the Democrats wanted their support for the stimulus and wanted to see how much they could get for their votes. Earmarks are an extremely effective way of bribing politicians opposed to your legislation into supporting it. So yes, there are plenty of Republican earmarks in the bill but they are in there because the Democrats hoped allowing those earmarks would get them the Republican votes they needed to pass the stimulus.

Then why doesn’t he set up a front company whose sole job is to mail a rebate check right back to his constituents, and make them the sole recipient of his earmarks. That’s increase his cult status, instead of making him look like a raging hypocrite (which he is, not to mention a bigot).

20

Excellent Post – I think Bush has just about killed the Republican Party as we know it. Republicans are so utterly irrelevant now and they don’t even understand why. They cry about the earmarks that they load into (and have loaded into bills for the last 9 years) They cry about deficit spending (as if deficits just occured On January 20, 2009) Even Americans who are busy trying to live a life and don’t have time for politics can see through them.
BTW - who here is shocked that Bristol and Levi are not getting married? So much for doing the right thing. To her credit, though, maybe she didn’t want a fellon to be her baby’s gramma