Politico attributed 2006 earmark drop to GOP Congress, ignored its failure to pass spending bills that year
SUMMARY: A Politico article suggested that the Republican-led 109th Congress was responsible for a decrease in the number of earmarks approved in 2006 (for the 2007 fiscal year) relative to previous years. But the article did not mention that following the Democratic victories in the 2006 midterm elections, the GOP leadership declined to pass nine of 11 annual appropriations bills and that in order to fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal 2007, Democrats placed a one-time moratorium on earmarks.
A November 12 Politico article headlined "Senate GOP leaders target earmarks" reported that Congress passed comparatively fewer earmarks, or special-interest provisions, in 2006 (for the 2007 fiscal year) than in previous years and suggested that the Republican-led 109th Congress was responsible for this decrease. But the article did not mention that following the Democratic victories in the 2006 midterm elections, the GOP leadership declined to pass nine of 11 annual appropriations bills and that in order to fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal 2007, Democrats placed a one-time moratorium on earmarks, after taking control of the House and Senate in January.
From the Politico article:
The number of earmarks swelled from 546 projects worth $3.1 billion in 1991 to almost 14,000 projects worth $27 billion in 2005, according to Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington, an early pioneer in providing data on special-interest projects.
The figures dropped last year to 2,658 projects worth $13 billion.
But by then, the political damage was done. Voters reacted to earmarks-for-contributions scandals and headlines about bloated Washington spending by giving Democrats control of Congress.
Despite attributing its figures on earmarks to the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), the Politico article ignored the fact that CAGW assigned credit for the comparatively low number of earmarks passed during 2006 to Congress' failure to pass the nine appropriations bills in 2006 and the Democrats' subsequent moratorium. From the summary of CAGW's "2007 Congressional Pig Book":
This year's Pig Book breaks a run of seven consecutive years of record dollar amounts of pork, culminating in $29 billion in the 2006 Congressional Pig Book. This lesser barrel of pork can be attributed to the efforts of Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who prevented the enactment of nine appropriations bills in December, 2006, and the subsequent moratorium on earmarks announced and enforced by the House and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairmen David Obey (D-Wis.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) in H. J. Res. 20, the bill that funds the government for the remainder of fiscal 2007.
A November 20, 2006, Associated Press article reported that many Republicans believed the unfinished budget work for fiscal 2007 would impede the incoming Democratic majority's agenda:
Republicans vacating the Capitol are dumping a big spring cleaning job on Democrats moving in. GOP leaders have opted to leave behind almost a half-trillion-dollar clutter of unfinished spending bills.
[...]
Driving the decision to quit and go home rather than finish the remaining budget work is a determined effort by a group of conservative Republicans to prevent putting a GOP stamp on spending bills covering 13 Cabinet Departments -- and loaded with thousands of homestate projects derided as "pork" by critics.
[...]
Some Republicans also look forward to using unfinished budget work to gum up an early Democratic agenda that includes raising the minimum wage, negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries, cutting interest rates on college loans and repealing some tax breaks for oil companies.
"Other stuff may get pushed off the table," said GOP lobbyist Hazen Marshall, a former longtime Capitol Hill aide. "It kills (Democrats') message."
A January 31 Washington Post article reported that when Congress convened in January 2007, House and Senate Democratic leaders formulated "a $463 billion spending plan for the remainder of the fiscal year" that was "stripped ... of all earmarks, or narrow, special-interest provisions":
House and Senate Democratic leaders agreed yesterday to a $463 billion spending plan for the remainder of the fiscal year that would freeze many federal agencies at 2006 levels but include more money for veterans' health, education, scientific research, HIV programs and public parks, among other things.
In an unusual move, the congressional leaders stripped the spending bill of all earmarks, or narrow, special-interest provisions. The measure had to be cobbled together now because Congress did not finish its work last year and failed to pass nine of 11 spending bills.
Four months into the current fiscal year, the federal government has been running on a temporary budget that is set to expire Feb. 15. The House is scheduled to vote on the spending package today, while the Senate will take it up in the coming weeks.
[...]
Republicans grumbled about the fact that Democrats in the House will not allow amendments to the budget and said the party in power plans to ram through a spending bill without committee hearings or meaningful debate. Democrats said that they have no choice, because the previous Congress left the budget process in such disarray that they are under great pressure to quickly pass a spending bill for the remaining eight months.
The Post article quoted Richard Kogan of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities saying of the congressional Democratic leaders, "They really delivered on their promise to wipe out earmarks."
Earmarks smearmarks.
The Republican base wants to hear about bitches and fa'ggots.
It makes you wonder what they're calling Obama behind closed doors.
Limbaugh called him a "Halfrican."
And he's still playing that "Barack The Magic Negro" song parody - I heard it just the other day during his radio pukefest.
See? By doing, uh, nothing... they saved us all a lot of dough!
Inaction is the new action! Prob be said for the Democratic Congress too...(unfortunately).
Well, at least a rise in the minimum wage and questioning Bush's cronies is better than building bridges to Alaska to save Terri Shaivo from married gay flag-burners (Jon Stewart's joke).
Not to mention online gambling and violent video games.
The biggest problem that I have with the Democratic leadership in Congress is that they don't seem to realize that "We the People" want these clowns gone! impeached! thrown in prison!
Sadly, the Democrats in Congress seem to think that they are doing us and the world a favor by sucking up and bending over for a president that has a 24% approval and a VP that has a 9%......... The right-wing media is never going to be your friend..... so why bother?
If I had this kind of approval at my job, I'd have been fired a long time ago!
To the Democrats in Congress, leadership especially included......
Stop giving into these thieves and liars! Unless perhaps, you are just as dirty or want to be so someday?
This isn't good for America and you know it!
TERM LIMITS and PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING!!
Well said, and I agree wholeheartedly. But with so much at stake, I understand the Democrats inclination to be careful. We can't survive another 2 terms of what we have now, and Democrats need to secure the votes of those 10% in the middle.
The mood feels like Republicans can expect to be in the minority for many years to come. It seems that W has destoyed yet another institution--the Republican party.
But, if Democrats fail to get 60 senate seats, and don't win the Presidency, we'll have more of the same. And although the mood feels positive for Dems, November is a long way off.
And, it would seem that I have written a whole bunch of stuff that we already knew. Good night all.
The Republicans AT HEART despise "social" programs. In their rhetoric to audiences of supporters, they claim to be the only ones who are "fiscally responsible."
Ah, but to try to win elections, they cannot be seen as being AGAINST such programs as Social Security and Medicare. So they push for "privatization", and those programs ... and so many more "Liberal" social programs ... simply continue on.
The GOP was in complete charge for 12 years in Congress. They had the presidency for 7 of those years. The American People gave them the chance to make their every dream come true, to enact REPUBLICAN leadership on every aspect of our governance.
Simply put, to be Republican is to be UNELECTABLE ... so they compromise their stated principles, and instead continue the policy set by Ronald Reagan: DEFUNDING THE LEFT. This theory goes, if you cut taxes and spend like crazy, EVENTUALLY this will bankrupt America and there just won't be any money to fund Liberal programs. They will, as rightwing thinker Newt Gingrich famously said, "Die on the vine."
Running up debt fits nicely with the corruption of earmarks; the GOP spent more money than ANY Democratic majority Congress, and for YEARS.
The bottom line here is that the Republicans can be "credited" with NOTHING that's good for America. They can't take credit for the social programs the people like, they can't take credit for fiscal responsibility, they can't even take credit for DEFENSE (Americans are MUCH less safe in this world than they were before Bush's disastrous "leadership".)
But none of this is any secret; The American people have wised up to the fact that Republicans in government equals an America declining in every way, except that one primary exclusive goal -- the rich are guaranteed to get very much richer. That's it, the sole extent of what the GOP does when in power.
Well said as always, Tex.
With so many real world examples of countries where a chosen few control a vast majority of the wealth, it really makes one wonder why anyone would vote for a party whose platform falls right in line with the same scenario.
You rock dude. There's nothin I can add. Perfectly stated as always.
(When will YOU run? You've got my vote!)