Although Hillary inadvertently donated $500 to Obama through her Portsmouth landlord, that does not compare to how money in Washington is viewed across this nation. President Bush started mentioning the devastating impact of earmarks in government (surprisingly doing so only after the Democratic party took control of Congress) and how corrupt the system is. Well when you look at our candidates, there is a huge difference. One embraces earmarks and the other generally shies away from them.
From The Washington Post:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure more than $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.
Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, Clinton supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.
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.
I think earmarks are good in small doses. They've been used sparsely for many years, until a rapid explosion in usage when (another surprise) the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. McCain is entitled to his no-earmark policy, but with our gridlocked government, nothing would be funded without them. The problem is the frivolous earmarks that are doled out too much.
So when the next round of Democratic primary voters go their caucuses or ballot boxes, remember the upcoming fight in November versus "Mr. Maverick."
|