Search
Home  |   About  |   Q & A  |   Archives  |   Credits  |   Contact  |  
« Nevada’s Gamble on Subprime Home Mortgages Ends by Crapping Out
Hillary Clinton is a Liar (but you knew that already) »

Has Your Congressman Sworn off Pork?

UPDATE

I just spoke with my Congressman’s (Rep. Mike McCaul [TX-10]) district and D.C. offices and asked him to sign-off on Rep. Jeb Hensarling’s (TX-05) oath to swear of earmarks back to our district. The interns who answered my calls said that they were not aware of a decision from Rep. McCaul on this matter, but that somebody (who did know) would get back to me.

________

The Club for Growth has compiled a list of Congressman and Senators who have sworn off earmarks:

Below are the brave members who have personally decided to stop receiving pork projects, if only temporarily, while they fight for reform.

NOTE — I’m concerned about that “temporarily” part though, as Bush has already said that he’ll allow all the current earmarks to go through. Does “temporarily” really just mean “until the next budget”?

I’d be interested to see how many people on this list 1) had earmarks in the omnibus spending bill that just went through, and 2) how many of them are up for re-election this year?

For now I’ll give them credit for simply being on the list at all.

Here’s the list:

HOUSE MEMBERS
Jeff Flake (AZ-06)
John Campbell (CA-48)
Jeb Hensarling (TX-05)
John Shadegg (AZ-03)
John Boehner (OH-08)
John Kline (MN-02)
Tom Price (GA-06)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03)
Virginia Foxx (NC-05)
Trent Franks (AZ-02)
Michele Bachmman (MN-06)
Marsha Blackburn (TN-07)
Eric Cantor (VA-07)
Patrick McHenry (NC-10)
Marilyn Musgrave (CO-04)
Peter Roskam (IL-06)
Paul Ryan (WI-01)

SENATORS
Tom Coburn (OK)
Jim DeMint (SC)
John McCain (AZ)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Richard Burr (NC)

It should come as a surprise to nobody that all are Republicans with the exception of Sen. Claire McCaskill from MO.

Notice a name conspicuous by its absence? Yeah…Rep. Ron Paul — the hypocrite who screams that he’s against government spending on pork and pet projects — yet who had more than $400 million in earmarks for his south Texas coastal district. Why should the federal government be paying $8 million for a Wild American Shrimp Marketing campaign requested by the Texas Shrimp Association in Dr. Paul’s district?

Also missing from that list is my Congressman, Rep. Mike McCaul (TX-10). Think I’ll give his office a call and find out why he’s not on it…

If your representative isn’t on the list, call their office and urge them to cut the addiction. The Capitol switchboard phone number is (202) 224-3121.

Posted by Robbie Cooper on Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 | Trackback |

11 Responses to “Has Your Congressman Sworn off Pork?”

Ron Paul has never voted for an earmark in his life. Probably no one else can say that. He forwards all requests for earmarks to Washington, then he votes against them. If more people did this, not a single earmark would pass.

The federal government shouldn’t be paying for shrimp marketing, that’s why Ron Paul voted against it.

Left by PK on January 29th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

None of my reps are on the list. An interesting thing about McCaskill from Mo. though. She is one of the most conservative democrats in Washington. I really like her, but her Mo. Democratic constituents complain about her constantly.

Left by Dianne on January 29th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Funny how Bush has mentioned the word earmarks ten times as much since the GOP lost Congress.

Bold, principled…

Left by Preston on January 29th, 2008 at 9:32 pm

Dianne, did you see McCaskill’s response to the SOTU?
Dang!
I think she was channeling Karl Marx, she seemed to be in a trance, and her words were eerily like his.

Left by no2liberals on January 30th, 2008 at 10:43 am

Preston
Yes he is.
Unlike the Swamp Mistress who claimed she was gonna drain it. It appears she meant she was gonna drain the money, not the swamp.

Left by no2liberals on January 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am

Yes he is.

Well, that settles that.

Or else, you could address the substance of the critique: that President Bush ignored the topic of earmarks while the GOP controlled Congress and directed that money to Republican districts. Bush only spoke up against the topic after the money spigot slowed a little for his political allies and picked up for his opponents.

Left by Preston on January 30th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Preston — your criticism is valid. In fact, the biggest complaint that most Republicans have had with President Bush is that he allowed Congress to spend like Democrats.

So — is it the spending and the earmarks that bother you (if so, don’t look at the biggest transgressors when it comes to personal earmarks [cough, cough, Hillary, cough, cough, Byrd, cough, cough, Murtha...]). Or is it that Republicans are spending like the Dems?

Left by Robbie Cooper on January 31st, 2008 at 9:06 am

I’m not sure if I have a fundamental objection to the practice though I would prefer it appropriations went through normal budgetary processes- that was the root of my opposition to the tremendous increase in the practice that occurred during GOP control of Congress. In short- fewer earmarks is better, but I don’t know if it’s necessary to get to zero.

But the heart of my point was an aside to this issue and simply a comment on the hypocrisy of the President.

Left by Preston on January 31st, 2008 at 11:51 am

so you stay neutral on earmarks (at least until the gop retakes congress), while you condemn bush for being a hypocrite…

irony anyone?

Left by adam on January 31st, 2008 at 5:12 pm

Does what I wrote imply neutrality on earmarks? I think I made my opposition to their increased use pretty clear.

Left by Preston on January 31st, 2008 at 11:22 pm

I’ll leave it to others to determine when earmarks became such a big issue, but if memory serves me correct, it didn’t become as widely discussed until the donks decided to use it as a campaign tactic in the year(s) before the ‘06 election, which would also coincide with the increase in the number of times W mentioned it in his SOTU. Does that make him a hypocrite on this issue or in general? I don’t think so. My major grievance was with the out of control spending that wasn’t in the earmarks.
In the case of the Swamp Mistress, who campaigned on the issue of “draining the swamp” and ending earmarks, yet they haven’t declined at all, then I would say she is without a doubt the clear winner of hypocrite on earmarks.

Left by no2liberals on February 1st, 2008 at 11:59 am

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.