The Ledger’s Overblown Blustering on Earmarks

The Clarion-Ledger declared: “Candidate Barack Obama didn’t like earmarks, but President Obama’s first budget is full of them.”

Congressional earmarks, however, represent less than 1 percent of the $410 billion omnibus budget, something less than “full of.” Let me say it again: earmarks, added by Congress, make up less than 1 percent of the budget.

"Full of"? The Ledger is nothing if not blustering ... and bumbling.

BTW, have they ever run editorials against Thad Cochran being the earmark king? Just wondering ...

Here's a link to the original story and data posted by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Media General has picked up the budget earmarks drama, including the fact that our very own Sen. Thad Cochran is the earmark king, with Roger Wicker playing the prince:

Mississippi’s two Republican senators – Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker - are the top two recipients of earmarked dollars for projects in the bill.

According to the group, Cochran was able to get 65 earmarks in the bill for a total of $76 million. In all though, Cochran’s name was attached to 204 earmarks totaling $471 million in spending for projects.

Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said that as the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Cochran is able to steer dollars toward Mississippi.

“It puts him in a perfect perch to be able to grab as much of the bacon and send it home to Mississippi and he’s certainly taken advantage of that,” Ellis said.
...
Wicker wasn’t as successful earmarking funds on his own and was able to get nine earmarks into the bill for a total of $4 million. But he joined with other members of Congress to support 143 earmarks for projects and programs totaling $391 million.
...
Ellis said members of Congress who earmark are making the assumption that other areas of the country don’t need that money even more.

“They’re essentially substituting their judgment for rational, merit based thinking on what should be funded,” he said. “… The powerful get the most money and then it trickles down.”

So for our two esteemed U.S. senators, we can deduce that earmarks are not OK unless they're our earmarks. Many of us are still waiting on that "trickle down" effect, too. Some have been waiting since Reagan.

Demonizing earmarks is wasted energy.
You could eliminate every earmark and it wouldn't bring the deficit under control.

People may decry about earmarks, but when it comes to their own districts, they're all good.

Some earmarks do have value.

The fact is many of the earmarked construction projects that will be funded under the stimulus and omnibus spending bills are necessary. The ones that aren't should have been taken out, but constitute a minuscule portion of the entire budget.