$$$$ HRC requested a 'Staggering' $2.3 billion in fed earmarks for 09' that's 3X any other Senator

[truthpusher]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-2.3b-in-earmarks-2008-04-28.html

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year.

The Democratic presidential candidate’s staggering request comes at a time when Congress remains engaged in a heated debate over spending federal dollars on parochial projects.

It also has gained traction on the campaign trail. Presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a longtime foe of earmarks, has called for eliminating what he dubs “wasteful Washington spending.” Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has spurned earmarks, seeking no funds for pet projects in the upcoming fiscal year.

Yet Clinton is continuing to request billions for earmarks, most of which will go to her home state.

[Independent-Voter]

1. Ahhh - I love the smell of fiscal responsibility in the morning

A portent of things to come if this shrew somehow gets elected. Her supporters need to get their head examined.

[MADem]

2. The more you REQUEST, the better shot you have at RECEIVING.

Asking doesn't mean she's going to GET all that. Or even a substantial chunk. But the more you ask for, the greater your odds of getting a chunk of that bacon.

What this "means" is that she is responsive to her constituency, and has one helluva good staff who can grind out the paperwork quite professionally in her absence.

The process is NOT ILLEGAL. It's entirely legal, and if a Senator doesn't reach in and grab some of that pork for his or her OWN state, what the hell good are they?

McCain has LOBBYIST problems. Substantial ones. He whines about the quite legal earmark process, but he glosses over writing letters on behalf of an attractive lobbyist...for starters.

[shraby]

3. How can you possibly excuse the

piggish grab of everyone's tax dollars? Especially in the wake of the cost of Iraq, people going without health care, the cost of gas, the rise in grocery prices, the failing infra-structure nation wide, just to name a few of the things luvely Clinton should be concerned about instead of vote-buying with congressional earmarks.

[MADem]

11. You don't read very well, I take it.

A REQUEST doesn't EQUAL an appropriation.

This isn't "Ask and ye shall receive."

Every Senator has a shot at this. Tell yours to get off their fat asses and do right by your fellow constituents.

You don't like the system? Gripe about it. Work to change it.

But it's LEGAL. L-E-G-A-L. And a senator that fights to get money for her constituency is a damned good senator--one who works ON BEHALF OF those who elected her.

The more you ask for, the more you increase your odds of getting a chunk of that pie. That's how it goes.

Great staff work, particularly since she's been on the campaign trail for so long. That's gotta be a tight ship, brilliantly run!

[bowens43]

5. Do you ever get dizzy when you do that?

[MADem]

12. It's fact. Sorry that you don't get how the system works, but that's not my problem.

Work to change the system if you don't like it. I imagine some of the people in the rust belt wish their senators would get off their asses and do a little more earmarking to maybe bring a few jobs to the worst hit districts...that might be nice.

[SoxFan]

19. Legal? Yes? Wrong? Absolutely.

If Hillary thinks a project or initiative has merit, run it through the budget process.

[MADem]

22. That's naive. Her job is to represent her CONSTITUENTS. She does that when she uses every LEGAL

advantage to get the most she possibly can for them.

If you want to call the practice WRONG, then you, and all of us, need to persuade our Senators to proscribe the earmarking process. But to yell at at HER for doing something that benefits her constituents is stupid. It's like asking her "How DARE you serve those who elected you well, by fighting to get them every possible advantage, using every tool available to you as a Senator?"

You always want the best for your own, that's called doing a good job--it's what gets people reelected.

It's our Congress that OK'd this game, you know.

Consent of the governed, and all that?

[rucky]

4. What for?

it's one thing to build a bridge to nowhere. another to improve schools and such. If she were from the Dakotas, this would stink much worse.

[redqueen]

6. Exactly - we need to know what all that money was intended to pay for.

[gaspee]

7. And how many

Constituents does she have?

Should she be requesting the same amount as a Senator from say, Wyoming?

Another shrill post from another Clinton hater. Sigh. Why do I bother?

[truthpusher]

9. TX, CA, FL - thier senators are all at least 3X less than HRC for earmarks... big f'n dif

[Bok_Tukalo]

10. Read the article more closely

You do not know what the senators from TX, CA, and FL requested nor are we told what Senator Clinton received.

The article is deceptive in that it compares two different things, requesting and receiving, and making its case on that faulty comparison.

The piece is just that; a piece.

[chill_wind]

8. Plan D. Keep that Senate seat warm. Real warm. n/t

[invictus]

13. $2.3 billion for the $109 million? That's about a 5% commission. n/t

[BenDavid]

14. that is good for her folks in New York. Hell, if your rep. or senator

does not get funds for your state then you should vote the ass out and get one in that will bring home the bacon so to speak. good for hrc.... good for byrd.....good for all dems that get money for the projects back home.....

[ballsalicious]

15. k/r

[onenote]

16. This will not serve her well in the GE if she gets the nomination

Twenty-nine senators voted earlier this year for a one year moratorium on earmarks. Of them there were five Democrats: Bayh, Clinton, Feingold, McCaskill, and Obama. The remaining 24 were repubs plus Lieberman.

My understanding is that none of the Democrats who supported the moratorium have put in requests for earmarks this year. And I'm fairly certain that the majority, if not all, of the repubs that supported the moratorium also didn't seek earmarks.

While earmarks per se aren't bad, they've been given a bad name because of abuses like the bridge to nowhere and abramoff. In the GE, they became an easy target for McCain to use to paint himself as a reform candidate on this issue -- and being seen as a "reform" candidate is going to be important this election, particularly when it comes to independent voters who ultimately may control the outcome.

She's going to have to provide more detail on her requests and let's hope, if she does get the nominee, that she doesn't have requests that will be easily used to embarass her. Remember the earmark for the Woodstock Museum? I thought it was fine, but it played very badly and was defeated on a roll call vote with, among others, Feingold, Bayh, McCaskill and Webb voting against Clinton.

[mod mom]

17. Oh I bet the GOP is salivating in hopes that Clinton is the nominee. Rush will be

out in full force getting more cross over votes to the polls in the primaries.

[malik flavors]

18. Some people call it pork, Hillary calls it steak.

[BlueIdaho]

20. Old school politics - they're not just for republicans any more!

Is this where HRC learned to budget a campaign?

[Minimus]

21. Federal earmarks?

Earmarks are generally defined as specific programs and grants, usually for one's home state. Hillary requested just $22 million in earmarks for three critical projects in New York State.

The rest of her requests are to increase funding for national programs, most involving health and public safety. These are not earmarks, just as someone who requests an increase in Medicaid funding is not requesting an earmark.

[anonymous171]

23. lol. Imagine her going up against "Fiscal Responsibility Reagan incarnate" McCain