Marketplace![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (16)
Share link
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
 Sen. Claire McCaskill [Click to enlarge] |
McCaskill made her remarks in a conference call with Missouri reporters that also touched on the war in Afghanistan and the ongoing debate on health insurance legislation.
The Missouri Democrat, who hasn't asked for any earmarks since taking office in 2007, said senior lawmakers of both parties gobble up money that should be available for competitive grants.
McCaskill's target Wednesday was the Save America's Treasures program, a public-private partnership that provides grants to preserve nationally significant artifacts, structures and sites. Of the $20 million appropriated for the program, she said, $10 million is set aside in earmarks.
On the Senate floor, McCaskill sought to overcome a debate rule barring amendments to the bill funding the program. She also noted that two economic development programs, the Neighborhood Initiative Program and the Economic Development Initiative, both begun as competitive grant programs, are now entirely earmarked.
McCaskill admitted the program she targeted was small but said the symbolism is important. Only a handful of members don't seek earmarks, she said, but the number of senators willing to vote to remove earmarks is growing.
The problem is growing, too, McCaskill said, noting that in a transportation appropriations bill approved last week, four senior members of the Senate Appropriations Committee took home more than half the earmarked funds.
Change will take time, McCaskill said.
"It is the process," she said. "It is the culture. It is the notion that it is OK for four senators to get half the money in an earmarked bill. If you were here and saw how this works, it is just bizarre how this works. Nobody understands it. Some of the ranking members get a honey pot, and some don't. It is up to the whim of the subcommittee chairman. As an auditor, it is offensive to me that this is the way we would distribute public money."
McCaskill did not try to block any earmarks sought for Missouri projects. U.S. Sen. Kit Bond and U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, both Republicans, regularly use earmarks to fund projects sought by constituents.
"People need to understand that Kit Bond has spent many, many years here to build up seniority to participate in this system as it exists," McCaskill said. "I am not a member of the Appropriations Committee. I am not a ranking member. In the long run, if we begin to reform this process, Missouri will be just fine. It is a big state, has a lot of water and a lot of transportation needs."
Bond, who is the ranking Republican on the Transportation/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, was not one of the four members who received more than half the earmarks, McCaskill noted.
In a statement issued late Wednesday, Bond said Congressional earmarks are more responsive to constituents than giving all the power to distribute federal money to executive agencies. Only about 2 percent of all federal spending is earmarked.
"Some politicians may trust only bureaucrats to do all the earmarking," Bond said. "They may not trust themselves or local citizens to set priorities, but I sure do. If elected officials don't have a say, Washington bureaucrats, many of whom have never been to Missouri, will be left in total control of our taxpayer dollars. That's not a risk I'm willing to take."
On health care, McCaskill said she was waiting for a final bill to emerge before agreeing to support it. She said she continues to want a public option plan to allow people who cannot find affordable insurance to purchase it through the government.
McCaskill said she expects action this year because failure to change health insurance will doom the nation to huge deficits for the foreseeable future. "This is hard, this is big and I think the American people deserve every effort we can make to get it and not a political food fight."
When asked about Afghanistan, McCaskill said the lessons of Iraq show that a purely military plan won't succeed. "It is not the United States that is going to win in Afghanistan, it has to be the Afghan people. We have got to help the Afghan people win the war."
388-3642
Pertinent address:
U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please 
Nice to know there is one person willing to say no to spending money endlessly. As a strong Republican the more I here about McCaskill the more impressed I am. She is sure doing a better job than Emerson.
I agree, frazzled. I'm waiting to see how much she bucks her party in the 'nuclear option' Harry Reid is threatening now.
You're kidding right? Claire McCaskill was the number one mouthpiece for the president that will double American debt in 10 short years from 10 TRILLION to 20 TRILLION... ...and now she's a fiscal conservative?!?! I got this bridge...
Whether or not you agree with her policies, McCaskill is the real deal. She's transparent, sincere, and approachable. How many politicians can you say that about?
Bebo, I'm with you. I say we buy her a portable scooter and drive her out of DC!!
I normally just read comments, but every now and them I feel obligated to comment when I read something really stupid. Well that just happened when I read bebo's post.
First off, no president can double the America's debt in 10 years. The most a president can serve is 2 terms, 8 years. I guess theoretically he can be a VP and then assume the presidency. But that wouldn't be 10 consecutive years.
Second, please focus on the facts. Lets hold our politicians accountable for their actions. You can't hold somebody accountable for things that haven't happened yet. Take off your party blinders, quite focusing on the impossible to prove and concentrate on the hear and now.
I am glad you brought up the national debt, but why is it you worry about the future 10 years and not worry about our current state. The mouthpiece for your fictional facts? Please, what about the state we are in right now? When Bush took over the debt was 5.6 trillion. When he left, over 10 trillion.
I have a novel idea. How about instead of supporting a party, you support your particular issues. So apparently national debt is something important you, then why ignore it the last 8 years. Now a politician comes along with a plan, small reaching it may be, that will hold some spending and programs accountable, but you can't get behind it? Why. Did you not worry about national debt, but refuse to support this initiative because it came from a democrat.
You see, I don't fear my government. I love my country simply because I know it's the best in the world. Its system of checks and balances protect us from one single person in the president's office. However what I do fear is that people choose ignorance over freedom of though. Who cares who put this bill together? Financial accountability is what is needed but you don't want to support it because why? Sorry your whole excuse about a doubling debt can't be applied here. Either you support spending accountability and responsibility or you don't.
Did she vote for the stimulus bill which had over 100 earmarks?
One more check on the positive side for McCaskill ... I'm surprised and impressed. Kind of neat to see a politician of either party willing to do such a thing ... although she hasn't really gone far enough in trying to block all earmarks.
Have thought for years that the entire 'earmark' concept should be eliminated, and replaced with a more fair system of returning states' tax dollars back to them. As it is, the system gives a few states much more in federal funds, through earmarks, than those states have contribted ... while most other states receive much less.
Perhaps the feds should consider giving back to each state a percentage of the amount contributed in taxes. Not only does that seem more fair, but it could eliminate some of the scrambling state representatives have to do to come up with some of their outrageous money-wasting project ideas that get tacked onto more-important bills that they believe will be passed.
Doubtful, though, that any effort to eliminate this system would be successful ... mainly due to the use of 'See, I brought X-millions of federal dollars back to our state' during campaigns.
Let's see, she voted YES for BOTH "stiumlus" packages that doubled the money supply but she's now fiscally conservative because she's against earmarks?
How stupid do they think you are?
Kind of missed the point.
This is why I do not like narrow minded party voters. Here we have a bill that looks a fiscal responsibility and we have people on here talking about here steak on the stimulus packages. Who cares?
What is your onionion on this bill?
Did she vote for the stimulus bill which had over 100 earmarks?
-- Posted by nObama on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, at 12:19 PM
What is exactly is the point you are trying to make? She wants to eliminate earmarks, so are you for them? Please clarify becasue here is your argument:
"She voted for a bill with earmarks in the past regaurdless if she supported the earmarks or not, so therefor I support earmarks"
So are you for or against earmarks? and if you are against them, then why are you against this bill?
Thanks Claire. You are finally seeing the light. I vote for fiscally responsible politicians whether Dem. or Rep..
A Republican interested in "fair competition"?? I think I just wet myself from laughing so hard.
Nice to see that some people on here care about issues more than party line. Lumbrgfktr, are you a fan of Office Space by any chance?
huge fan of office space.
gurusmom,
Great point. I would support an "earmark" bill that gives each member of Congress a budget to spend in their district as long as the bill also eliminates all other earmarks. That way we get to see the representative's true priorities by seeing what they spend the money on. It also levels the playing field, so a freshman member's district gets the same support as a veteran member. It will also prevent the money grab that takes place when gaining support for a bill.