Clinton: $2.3B in earmarks

[southern_belle]

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. {emphasis mine}.

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.

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

[NJmaverick]

1. She is trying to buy her way to the White House, with our money

[southern_belle]

4. It sure does sound like it, doesn't it.

:(

[KittyWampus]

9. she is a War Pig, a huge chunk of that is to the Military Industrial Complex

[nebula]

2. She wants to bankrupt the country

the same way she has bankrupted her campaign.

[Tinksrival]

6. It's all in the name of homeland security!

You know, Terror...9-11!

[nebula]

8. Sure it is

and that is why she refuses to disclose what the requests were for.

It's top secret!

[nebula]

3. The GOP attack machine

is going to have a field day if she is the nominee.

[oviedodem]

5. McCain is going to run all over that one. If I am not mistaken, Obama said he was not asking for

any this year.

[Mizmoon]

7. I bet a lot of it is homeland security for New Yok City eom

[juajen]

10. Excuse me.

Earmarks are the way Senators get money for their states. Do you have any idea how much taxes New York pays into our treasury every year. It's right at the top with California, and other highly populated states. The higher your electoral vote, the larger your voting population is. That's why NY and CA have such a large electoral vote.

The ratio of earmarks to taxes paid is very low compared to states like Alabama, Idaho; well, you get my drift.

If we want to do away with earmarks, you certainly shouldn't pick on one of the states that gives us so much tax revenue. New York and other largely populated states have long complained about this ratio, and are quite mad about it.

[Obamanaut]

11. On the failed vote for a moratorium

Obama voted for the moratorium, and Sen Clinton did also, but only after waiting to see which way Obama voted.

But, even though she voted for it, her 2.3 billion still goes forward. What might she have been thinking - perhaps something along the line of ‘this is gonna fail, I’ll look good if I’m against it, no one will notice my 2.3 billion going forward.’

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8943.html

<snip>

Late Monday, presidential candidate Barack Obama, quickly followed by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, joined Senate efforts to ban all such home-state projects next year, and the anti-pork camp also hopes to pick up some unexpected help from a third Democrat: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The back-to-back endorsements mean the entire presidential field will be on board the budget amendment already co-sponsored by the likely Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain. Pelosi has not yet gone so far as to embrace such a broad moratorium on earmarks, but she also has signaled a growing weariness with the debate and a desire to take the issue off the table going into the November elections.

<more>