Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
01.06.2009 5:30 pm

Obama, McCaskill aim at earmarks

Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
  • Email this
  • Print this
Obama and McCaskill

Obama and McCaskill

WASHINGTON — To some, it’s a time-honored method deployed by veteran legislators to steer much-needed projects back home.

To others, it’s a sneaky way to lard up appropriation bills with pork.

However you look at the practice of earmarking legislation, look for less of it in the new Congress sworn in today.

President-elect Barack Obama, warning today of a $1 trillion budget deficit next year, said he’ll abide no earmarks in the massive stimulus legislation being riveted together.

“We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review,” said Obama, who made over $700 million in earmark requests as an Illinois senator.

“We are going to stop talking about government reform and we’re actually going to start executing,” Obama added.

Later, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) echoed those sentiments in a letter to Senate leaders.

McCaskill, a former state auditor and a budget hawk, called for  ”earmark-free” stimulus legislationand along with extra money for the Government Accountability Office and inspector generals in federal agencies to ride herd over the spending.

“The unprecedented size and nature of this economic recovery package call for increased oversight and transparency,” McCaskill wrote.

There was even more on the earmark front. The Senate and House Appropriation Committees today announced earmark reforms for the new Congress, including a requirement that members post earmark requests on their Web sites.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, the advocacy group that has pushed to do away with earmarking, welcomed the announcement but noted that what follows will be lists in 535 places, rather than one.

5 comments

Comments are closed.

Wow! If Obama and McCaskill are banning earmarks, after all these years of Republicans larding up legislation … well, it just makes you wonder, don’t it?

The real question is this: If they send Obama a bill with earmarks, will he veto it? If not, his “ban” is meaningless.

— Nick Kasoff
5:46 pm January 6th, 2009

What about pork loaded up on the front end? He also seems to get the definition of earmark wrong, but its not like he has alot of experience with legislation, the OMB definition is “Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to properly manage funds. Congress includes earmarks in appropriation bills - the annual spending bills that Congress enacts to allocate discretionary spending - and also in authorization bills. “

— Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum
6:17 pm January 6th, 2009

Looks like the “whine and cry” Repug-nicans (below) are falling all over themselves trying to paint a bad picture on this long-overdue act of integrity…..glad we are finally getting past these GOP nattering nabobs of negativism, for our country’s sake…..

“Cynicism is a sorry excuse for wisdom.”
- Barack Obama

— MidwestCommonSense
6:42 pm January 6th, 2009

McCaskill has a pretty fair record on earmarks but Obama? His short tenure in the Senate resulted in a very high level of earmarks for Illinois.

He will undoubtedly redefine an earmark to make this work.

— Jackson
10:34 pm January 6th, 2009

How come Obama is opposed to earmarks now? He sure as hell was a big fan of them while he was in the Senate. Why couldn’t he stand up against earmarks then, peer pressure?

— Amazedbythelunacy
9:19 am January 7th, 2009