McCain's Earmark's

With a $700 billion financial bailout in the works, you would think John McCain would have been prepared for the obvious question Jim Lehrer asked in last night's presidential debate: "what you would do as president to lead this country out of the financial crisis?"

McCain launched into his well-worn campaign theme on the "evils of earmarking and pork-barrel spending," McCain sounded sincere, and I was relieved that he didn't cling to his previous claim that he "can eliminate $100 billion of wasteful and earmark spending immediately."

So he accepted the $18 billion figure as more or less accurate, but complained:

"The point is that – you see, I hear this all the time. 'It's only $18billion.' Do you know that it's tripled in the last five years?"

Well it turns out this isn't quite accurate. According to information from Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), there was $22.5 billion worth of earmark spending in 2003, and by 2008 the figure had come down to $17.2 billion, a reduction of 24 percent. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a similar watchdog group, estimates that "Congress has cut earmarks by 23 percent from the record 2005 levels."

Well, a 24% reduction isn't really the same as a 200% increase, but slight miscalculations are to be expected from someone who has "never really understood" economic issues. Apparently that also includes math.

McCain also cited an example of $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana, included in the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. A humorous story, but incomplete. Here's the rest of the story, courtesy of FactCheck.org:

"The study in question was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is – but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark."

Surely the ever-vigilant Republicans voted against this piece of pork-barrel legislation, but were overwhelmed by "tax and spend" Democrats. Well, it turns out only 20 Senators voted against the 2003 appropriations bill, including 18 Democrats, one Independent, and one very lonely Republican.

Was it John "Maverick" McCain who stood up against this blatant example of legislative pork? Nope, the only Republican Senator to vote against the bill was Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald. McCain voted in favor of the bill along with nearly every other Republican.

Why would McCain vote for such a bill? Maybe it was because the same Bill included $162 million in earmarks for the state of Arizona. Not in the league of Alaska's Republican Senator Ted Stevens, who earned top awards by pulling in $611 for each Alaska resident, but still a respectable showing and a new record for Arizona.

And that, my friends, is why we have so much "pork" in our budgets; you scratch my earmark and I'll scratch yours. It's also why we need someone that can do more than just talk about eliminating government waste.