Pardon me, media, if I'm not outraged at earmarks totaling 1.8% of the $410B omnibus budget bill.

[flpoljunkie]

Boo, frickin hoo!

[masuki bance]

1. Obama will reign this in

"Obama and Biden believe that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama and Biden will slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/fiscal/

[LSparkle]

2. Yep, the Rethugs are the party of 2% ...

whether that's the TOP 2% economically or just 2% of the darned
budget bill.

Talk about being in the MINORITY!

[Supersedeas]

21. when it's 2% and Repigs in charge--NOT A PEEP FROM CORP SHILLS--1 point something

and the Rove Facs Machine has the Network Anchors and Shill Filled Pundits buzzing

[Enthusiast]

3. Earmarks are obviously extremely

important. It is all I've heard about on TV today. Mostly I've heard how Republicans disapprove of earmarks. :freak:

[flpoljunkie]

4. MSNBC just showed a list of the Republicans who opposed the bill who had the most earmarks.

First on the "Hypocrites' list was Senator Inhofe, R-Oklahoma. I did not catch the others, altho I think Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell must have been on the list, as well.

[flpoljunkie]

6. More from NBC's First Read. McConnell was #2 with earmarks totally $51 Million.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the spending bill a "missed opportunity" and urged President Obama to veto it. "The bill costs far too much for a government that should be watching every dime," he said.

And Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R) said in opposition to the legislation: "Each and every time, whether a Republican or Democratic initiative, I have refused to go along with big government spending or big government solutions."

But as it turns out, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Bayh had four solo earmarks attached to his name in the legislation, worth $2.7 million; McConnell had 36 totaling $51 million; and Inhofe had 34 earmarks worth $53 million.

Indeed, of the 35 U.S. senators who opposed the omnibus spending bill last night -- in the form of a "no" on the cloture vote -- 28 of them had solo earmarks in the legislation.

In total, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, these 28 senators had a combined 307 solo earmarks totaling nearly $240 million. The breakdown is below.

Here's the breakdown:

Barrasso (4 earmarks, $2.7 million)
Bayh (4 earmarks, $1.2 million)
Bennett (23 earmarks, $18 million)
Brownback (21 earmaks, $12 million)
Bunning (5 earmarks, $735,000)
Burr (3 earmarks, $1.3 million)
Chambliss (7 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Collins (1 earmark, $380,000)
Corker (1 earmark, $760,000)
Cornyn (5 earmarks, $2.5 million)
Crapo (1 earmark, $100,000)
Enzi (5 earmarks, $1.7 million)
Graham (14 earmarks, $9.5 million)
Grassley (8 earmarks, $350,000)
Gregg (19 earmarks, $10 million)
Hatch (7 earmarks, $700,000)
Hutchison (35 earmarks, $9.9 million)
Inhofe (34 earmarks, $53 million)
Isakson (2 earmarks, $1.4 million)
Kyl (3 earmarks, $5 million)
Lugar (10 earmarks, $3.3 million)
Martinez (8 earmarks, $18.8 million)
McConnell (36 earmarks, $51 million)
Roberts (11 earmarks, $2.2 million)
Sessions (12 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Thune (6 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Vitter (16 earmarks, $4 million)
Voinovich (6 earmarks, $13.5 million)

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/11/1832273.aspx

[Enthusiast]

12. The party of hypocrisy.

That is what they are. They will SAY anything to send up a smoke screen, then they do anything they want because the media seldom calls them out. Nice to hear MSNBC stepped up, for a change.

[greenkal]

5. As if anyone cares about 1.8%

It's the other 98.2% that matters most!

[flpoljunkie]

7. There does need to be an earmark evaluation process, but there are so many other pressing problems!

Like jobs, jobs, jobs! Let alone the home foreclosure crisis and the friggin' zombie banks!

[Myrina]

8. Seriously!!

Our economy would lose $7B in the time it takes to debate and fenagle over which ones to remove!

Get on with it, Washington, and get OVER IT, Media!!

[joeglow3]

9. Why should the Congress HAVE to fight over this. JUST DON'T ADD THEM!!!

I agree that it is a small part of the bill. However, are these people in Congress little kids that need to be watched non-stop? How hard is it to just not add them?

[BR_Parkway]

10. If they found the trillions missing from the Pentagon - they could pay for

decades worth of earmarks.

[uponit7771]

11. I don't think they want to let the 1.8% out of the bag...it'll kill the RushPublican battle cry

[spanone]

13. it's asinine, but as always, the media and the republicans put their echo chambers on high

and it reverberates back & forth & back & forth

[Uzybone]

14. I'm not either

How much did we flush down the AIG toilet again? Or the Iraq war?

[ErinBerin84]

15. yeah

ABC nightly news doing a typical hit piece, with Gibson saying "He said he OPPOSED earmarks during the campaign!", with Jake Tapper implying that he went behind closed doors to "secretly" sign the thing or something.

[burning rain]

16. This crusade against earmarks serves as a bait-and-switch...

to allow Republicans who support the enormity of the Iraq War and all sorts of needless, excessive military spending to come back and pose as good stewards of the public treasury. Piss on those phonies (McPutz especially).

[Enthusiast]

17. Smoke and mirrors. nt

[EmilyAnne]

18. NPR, CNN and Wall Street Journal along with so many other media outlets continue to use the phrase

"LOADED with earmarks" when referring to the budget bill.

[falcon97]

19. "loaded", "filled", and "packed" are what

I've heard. One begins to wonder if the reporters actually understand what it is they are reporting about!

[flpoljunkie]

20. Yep. John Stewart gets it; he had a pie chart last night showing earmarks less than 2%.

What would we do without Stewart and Colbert-who are better at truth telling than all the cable talking heads put together.