Thursday, February 14, 2008

Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain: Earmarks

There is an interesting story today from the Washington Post that can be found on the CBS News web site. It concerns earmarks -- the way some of our elected officials sneak money to their home states. I say "sneak" because earmarks have not been very transparent in the past. Thankfully there is some movement to do something about this. The article though mentions the three front-running candidates and the earmarks they were able to get. Here are the highlights:

Hillary Clinton: "... $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year's spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group." [The group is Taxpayers for Common Sense.]

Barack Obama: "... $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed."

John McCain: "one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending."

Way to go McCain!!

The article also noted:
"As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects, while Obama adheres to a policy of using them only to support public entities. McCain is using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack against Clinton, even running an Internet ad mocking her $1 million request for a museum devoted to the Woodstock music festival. Obama has been criticized for using a 2006 earmark to secure money for the University of Chicago hospital where his wife worked until last year."
See also this post on federal spending.

1 comment:

jules said...

Well, McCain doesn't come off quite so clean:

He just doesn't _call_ them earmarks... Handy, that way.