Earmarks

The Senate Appropriations Committee announced yesterday a "moratorium on earmarks for the current session of Congress."   But Sen. Roy Blunt, one of the committee's newest members, has been a steadfast supporter of the existing earmarking process, even suggesting that the Constitution requires the current system to continue without reform.   Blunt's pro-pork stance and silly Constitutional argument puts him decidedly at odds with leaders in his own party, the President and a growing number of Democratic leaders, and the public. 

Posted today to Sen. Claire McCaskill's official YouTube channel: "Last night, Claire went to the Senate floor to call out the hypocrisy of those who supported an earmark ban last month, but requested and received earmarks in the 'omnibus' spending bill. Republicans tried to claim credit for killing the bill due to wasteful government spending, but Claire called them out on their participation in the bill, including millions of dollars in earmark requests. Claire opposed the bill because it did not include strict spending caps and because it included over 6,000 earmarks"

The Hotline reports this morning that members of the brand new "Tea Party Caucus" requested more than $1 billion in earmarks in the 111th Congress.   Missouri's Todd Akin and Blaine Luetkemeyer are members of the caucus -- Akin sought $14.7M in earmarks in Fiscal Year 2010, while Luetkemeyer didn't ask for any.

A couple of weeks ago, St. Louis Tea Party leaders http://www.firedupmissouri.com/content/blunt-vote-against-earmarks-prohibition-st-louis-tea-partiers-feign-surprise(on Twitter, anyway) when Senator-elect Roy Blunt announced that he didn't have any interest in reforming the existing earmark process.  Local sillyperson Dana Loesch even promised to look for a 2016 primary challenger if Blunt ignored their empty threats, and then that all went away when it became clear that they weren't actually scaring anyone.

h/t The indispensible Political Wire

Senator Claire McCaskill's staff posted this clip of her floor speech before today's unsuccessful vote on a three-year earmark ban. 

On KMOX this afternoon, Senator-elect Roy Blunt continued his defense of the federal earmarking process, and accurately stated that angry tea party activists shouldn't be suprised by his opposition to an earmark ban. And not only should they not be suprised, Blunt said "they shouldn't be disappointed." Speaking with host Mark Reardon:

REARDON:  You signed this tea party agreement.  And I know that the tea party group has gone after you. They're disappointed in your stand because I guess they feel like it's a bait and swich.

BLUNT: Well, they shouldn't be disappointed on this.  I've been very clear on this, on your program and everywhere else, that I think there will always some things in the federal government that should be--  that are competed for, and I intend to compete for the ones that Missouri has a reason to compete for.

Listen:

A person could criticize Blunt for being dismissive and unimpressed with the tea party's complaints, but he's right.  We knew his position all along, and if they were too dumb to know what he was all about, that's their problem.   And why would he care about any of their hysterics if they don't actually follow through on any of their threats?

Just posted...

The Post-Dispatch reports this afternoon that Roy Blunt plans to vote against a ban on earmarks.  THIS IS A TOTALLY SHOCKING DEVELOPMENT.  This isn't shocking to anyone familiar with Blunt's record in the House or his lame damage control on the issue earlier this year, but it is noteworthy on a day when even Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) flip-flopped to support the ban.

Meanwhile, St. Louis Tea Partiers like Dana Loesch and Bill Hennessy are either (a) executing their own post-election damage control strategy after supporting Blunt's Senate candidacy, or (b) really not up to snuff in the reading comprehension department.  Hennessy, for example, condemned Blunt (after the election) for "pretend[ing] the Tea Party never happened."  And today, Loesch tweeted all of the following:

• Are you kidding me? @clairecmc is opposing earmarks whereas @royblunt is not? http://bit.ly/d5sC4d
• I can't say what the heat is going to be like if @royblunt refuses to stand against earmarks. Grassroots are furious.
• I'm ready to start looking for a viable candidate who can run a GOOD campaign to primary Blunt unless he goes anti-earmark and ltd govt.
• All #MO eyes on @royblunt to see if he joins McConnell in endorsing earmarks ban...

All of these are very bold and courageous stands for a radio personality to take after passing on Senate candidates in the primary and general elections who opposed the current earmark process, and refusing to make any real stink at a time when it actually would have mattered.

Read More »

Way back in the heady days of spring , Roy Blunt praised himself for supporting a one-year moratorium on earmarks, calling it "a critical step toward cutting spending."  His election year stunt fooled a few, including the Associated Press' here in Missouri, which declared that Blunt was joining Robin Carnahan in a "movement against earmarks."  But the notion that Blunt was part of any serious "movement against earmarks" was as preposterous then as it is was now, considering his career as a  "proud and prolific earmarker" in Congress.

And now that Election Day has come and gone, the Republican cheerleaders on the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal are giving up the charade entirely, and are celebrating the Senator-elect as "Senator Earmark."

A Fired Up! tipster points to a new YouTube video from Virginia-based Americans for Job Security attacking CD7 candidate Billy Long for supporting a "bus terminal to nowhere" as a board member for the Springfield-Branson Regional Airport.

The only evidence cited in the ad to back up the claim is this 2000 article from the Springfield Business Journal that said the terminal expansion was funded "a $3-per-ticket passenger facility charge program and a federal transportation grant that requires a 20 percent match." 

Read More »

A new Politico story identifies Robin Carnahan and Chuck Purgason as part of "a new crop of Senate candidates [which] is threatening one of the last bastions of unapologetic earmark protection: old-bull senators and lobbyists."

Duane Graham flags a Joplin Globe article in which CD7 candidates Gary Nodler and Jack Goodman describe any incentive package for Ford to update its Claycomo assembly plant as a "bailout." Nodler:

[R]esidents of Southwest Missouri strongly opposed the federal auto bailout, and I’m not sure I see any indication they would be more enthusiastic about a state bailout. It’s still taxpayer dollars, directed at a specific industry.

Astute readers will recall similar complaints from Nodler last year regarding "taxpayer dollars directed at a specific industry" when he added line-items for Joplin-based Eagle Picher and other companies so they could secure federal grants and create at least 500 new jobs. Oh, wait, nevermind. 

Nodler has also defended the Congressional earmark process, while trying to invent a new self-serving definition for the term (to be used only by Gary Nodler).

Read More »

What do you think Roy Blunt thinks when he hears his GOP colleagues say things like this?

"We are not the same Republican party that was fired in 2006," [Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)] said. "Not only are we dedicated to cleaning up the process, we also want to take the money and put it towards retiring the debt."

I ask, of course, because Blunt was fired in 2006.  Literally.  He was rejected by his own colleagues in his bid to be permanent House Majority Leader because of "his deep ties to the lobbying effort, his status-quo agenda, and his close relationship with ex-House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay." 

Cantor's comments are specifically about the House Republicans' new disdain for Congressional earmarks, and a new proposal shamelessly co-sponsored by Blunt, heretofore a  "proud and prolific earmarker."

I can't imagine that anyone who was awake from 2000-2008 is buying this.

Read More »

Demonstrating an ongoing concern with his record of supporting earmarks in Washington, Roy Blunt today signed on as a co-sponsor of a GOP plan to ban earmarks for one whole year.  It's not exactly a bold stand for Blunt -- all but 12 Republicans agreed to co-sponsor the resolution, sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).

If there's ever been an election year about-face, this is it.  Blunt has been a  "proud and prolific earmarker" in Congress, and many of the Republicans hoping to take his Seventh Congressional District have openly distanced themselves from his record on the issue.  For instance, Sen. Jack Goodman has described the earmarking practice celebrated by Blunt and Sen. Kit Bond as "awful."

In 2007, a Center for Public Integrity investigation showed that Blunt was the only member of the Congressional leadership to participate in a controversial method of providing earmarks to those represented by former-staffers-turned lobbyists.

Also in 2007, the editorial board of the Springfield News-Leader hammered the Velvet Hammer for playing "games" with earmarks, noting that he "allowed earmarks to get out of control during an era of no accountability." 

Read More »

Southeast Missourian columnist Michael Jensen is misinformed.

Sensing the growing public opposition to runaway pork, both leading U.S. Senate candidates in Missouri -- Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan -- this week pledged to curtail earmarks if elected. If that comes to pass, they would join Sen. Claire McCaskill, who swore off pork projects when she was elected...

Carnahan says she would oppose any earmarks period. Blunt goes beyond that and pledges to end the practice of earmarks and to introduce legislation to reduce the federal budget by $30 billion -- the amount spent on earmarks last year.

Blunt has not "pledged to end the practice if elected."  He only supports a 1-year ban --  one that would extend just beyond the November 2010 elections. 

Read More »

A proposal to freeze earmark spending for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 was defeated in the Senate yesterday by a 68-29 vote. Sen. Kit Bond voted to kill the proposal, Sen. Claire McCaskill supported the moratorium.

Twenty-four Republicans voted for the measure, sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), and 15 GOP senators voted against it.  Just four Democrats, including McCaskill, voted with DeMint for temporary ban.

UPDATE 2 -  The AP has updated its story.  After Kraske's story was printed, the AP reported that "Campaign spokesman Rich Chrismer said Friday that Blunt will abide by the Republicans’ one-year moratorium on earmarks."

UPDATE - Steve Kraske writes this afternoon: "Blunt refused to join the growing bandwagon of lawmakers calling for a temporary, or even permanent, suspension of the practice of awarding earmarks..."

Check out the headline and first sentence in this new AP story: "Missouri's leading US Senate candidates join movement against congressional earmarks."

When did Roy "proud and prolific earmarker" Blunt say he was "against earmarks?" Yesterday, he made a weak proposal to make $30 billion in unspecified cuts to  the federal budget -- but how does such a response constitute a "movement against earmarks" in any way?

Compare the AP's summary of Blunt's position to the following, printed yesterday in Politico:

Blunt has defended the process of earmarking, following the lead of retiring Sen. Kit Bond, whose prolific appropriating has delivered millions for Missouri roads, bridges, airports and housing projects. In 2010 alone, Blunt requested $153 million in earmarks, a record Carnahan was eager to take a swipe at.

Read More »

UPDATE: Blaine Luetkemeyer supports the GOP proposal. 

House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-OH) announced in a statement today that his caucus is "serious about reform by adopting an immediate, unilateral ban on all earmarks."  ABCNews.com:

Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind., said the decision to "renounce earmark requests of all kinds" came only after a "marathon debate" among conference members.  But he praised the decision as "a new way forward."

"By standing in favor of a moratorium on earmarks in this Congress, House Republicans are making a clean break from the past," Pence said.  "We are offering the American people a fresh start on spending in Washington, DC."

Emphasis added. This "clean break from the past" is a "clean break" from the leadership of people like Roy Blunt -- and this puts him in quite the pickle.

Read More »

State Senator Chuck Purgason emailed a statement today criticizing his GOP primary opponent, Rep. Roy Blunt, for supporting years of deficit spending and Washington, and for highlighting Blunt's strong support from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

Voting for a budget, wishing it was balanced, and putting off tough decisions cannot continue. We must have leaders willing to stand up and work until the budget is balanced and committed to voting for a budget only if it is balanced.

With the federal government borrowing $20,000,000,000.00 a week just to pay the bills, we must swear off the passing of earmarks. We cannot allow members of Congress to continue with the credit cards running up debt on this country.

Purgason's statement also points to the $96,950 in campaign contributions Blunt received from individuals and PACs connected to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1989-2008.  Purgason incorrectly states that "Blunt has taken more PAC money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any member of Congress" -- Spencer Bachus accepted $103,000 during that same time span -- but the point is made.

Read More »

Billy Long, the Republican auctioneer trying to replace Roy Blunt in Congress, has signed the Citizens Against Government Waste's pledge to oppose "irresponsible, corrupt" earmark spending. 

Fellow CD7 candidate Sen. Jack Goodman signed the same pledge in October, and has described the earmarking practice celebrated by Blunt and Sen. Kit Bond as "awful." Candidates Darrell Moore and Jeff Wisdom have made similar promises.