New Pig Book says Hillary Clinton's tops in pork spending, Barack Obama's 2nd, but John McCain had none!

The nonpartisan taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste is out with its newest Pig Book, an overwhelming detailing of all 11,610 pork barrel projects inserted in the current fiscal year's appropriations bills by individual members of Congress.

These semi-secret spending measures cost taxpayers an extra $17.2 billion this fiscal year alone. This is the first year legislators have had to attach their names to these measures.

That's B for billion dollar$. In extra spending. That typically didn't go through the usual legislative committee screening. A huge increase over the previous year.

And guess which one of the surviving presidential candidates likes pork the most? And the least?

According to the Pig Book ("The Book Washington Does Not Want You to Read"), New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is our new grand national oinker among presidential contenders for most pork barrel spending. She inserted a whopping 281 individual spending projects into bills for the benefit of New York interests at the cost of taxpayers everywhere.

That totals $296.2 million.

The new national hero, on the other hand, for not inserting one penny of pork barrel spending is the Republican Party's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. As a longtime staunch opponent of such earmarks, McCain may be expected to raise the subject of such special spending if Clinton becomes his Democratic opponent in the fall's general election.

He may also bring it up if his opponent is Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who may be a freshman senator but still isn't shy about inserting special earmarks into legislation cataloged by the taxpayer group's annual report. He accounted for 53 special earmarks, totaling almost $97.4 million.

This includes about $402,000 for a juvenile delinquency program at the Shedd Aquarium and $383,000 for another ethanol research plant.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who still technically is in the GOP race, has campaigned against large government seeping into the lives of American citizens. However, according to the Pig Book, that didn't keep him from proposing eight pork-spending bills totaling $22 million, including nearly $4 million to alter a Galveston bridge.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Photo: Baltimore Sun

Comments

[Rico]

I humbly disagree with the assertion that Barack Obama's spending was considered "pork". Spending money on juvenile delinquency and ethanol research isn't just NOT pork, they actually seem like worthwhile ideas.

McCain's hundred years war costs us to the tune of $10 billion. That's not just pork, that's the whole pig roasted on a stick.

[Steve]

No surprise here, well done McCain ! One of these people will realise all in all we are much better of with a Republican government, time and time again we are shown this is the right way forward ! Go McCain even though you are a tad too liberal not nearly as ratbad as the other two !

[Tom Hopkin]

Senator Clinton's spending doesn't suprise me. What else is hidden in her Tax returns?????

Tom
Concord, Illinois

[Dennis Buchan]

Keep up the good work!!!

[Michael]

It's misleading to say that Clinton was 1st and Obama second. Both were way down in the pack compared to other Senators. Good for McCain, though he authorized the biggest pork barrel project--the Iraq War.

[Matt]

Is anyone terribly surprised that Hillary was at the top of these three in pork spending?

[Craig]

And this surprises... anyone?

[Chris]

With all the "accidents" the friends, supporters, officials, etc... experienced who surrounded the Clintons during the 90's, would Obama really want to risk having Hillary as his vice presidential choice?

[Roger]

I live in Pittsburgh and was fortunate to attend Sen. Clinton's Jobs Summit this morning. She was incredible and her intelligence and practical solutions about economic issues profound. She did not give a canned speech but spoke from years and years of experience and from the heart - often responding to impromptu questions from panelist and audience members (who clearly were NOT staged). My prediction - she's going to run circles around Obama at the upcoming PA debate about issues of our economy - maybe then the media will give her the credit and attention she deserves for her years of experience, innovative ideas, and willingness to listen and take action to bring our country out of this economic stupor. Obama's and Clinton's ads are all over our TV sets - and a stark difference is that Obama's ads talk about "hope", "change" and his diverse upbringing. Clinton's talks about REAL issues, her ideas, her experience and highlight her supporters who also have years of experience. The ads are so lop-sided its almost funny. I just hope the great people of PA, IN, NC and the other 7 states are smart enough to see through Obama's rhetoric. Inspiring speeches about hope, change, and diversity aren't going to mean anything come 2009...and if Obama's the one sitting in the oval office, our country will be sorely disappointed. I respect him but his experience and ability to be President pail in comparison to Sen. Clinton's.

[A New Yorker]

In contrast to many other states, New York gives far more money to the Federal government than it gets back, so if our Senator is balancing things out a bit, that's only fair.

[dave]

what about the greatest pork barrel of all, the trillions wasted in desastrous private wars, the billions that sponsored treasonous actions of irresponsible, deluded elites? and hundreds of thousands of people killed and maimed and suffering. but hardly surprising, the blinded will not see who is blinding them.

[tom davis]

Pork barrel spending is nothing less than theft of the taxpayers' money. 99% of it is a total waste: bridges to nowhere, and junk science studies to determine how many fruit flies can dance on the head of a pin. IT HAS TO STOP!!!

[Nunnayabiznass]

What a nice Republican't spin on things.
McCain supports no pork barrel spending?!?!
He can't seem to get enough of Iraq! He loves it soooo much he's alreadfy talking about another 100 years of our kids dying over there so that BIG OIL can make even more money.
The War for OIL is a bigger concern to our country than PORK barrel spending.
At least with the issue of POrk Barrel Spending, the money stays in our own country where it came from and isn't wasted in another country to ensure the future deaths of many and the additional wealth to the few well connected soulless OIL crownies that feed our current Administration.
The War is about the OIL LAW not 9-11.
If it was about 9-11- we'de be killing Saudis not Iraqis. BUt everyone bought the BUSH LIES hook line and sinker. Let's not elect another fool who can't admit when he's wrong...
Alot of American cities could use some of the pork barrel funds that have been spent on the mistake that is Iraq.

[Joe]

Earmarks aren't the only thing that book discusses. They actually have a much different list of pig spenders which does NOT have any presidential candidate in the top 10.

Like many things, earmarks have a legitimate use, but also a potential for abuse, so it's important to see how legitimate the projects funded are.

Anyhow, if you want to look at only earmarks, my recollection is that Hillary is in the top 10 in the Senate (which is unusual for someone not on the Appropriations Committee), Obama is in the bottom third, and McCain is either last or tied for it.

Unfortunately, there are other ways to spend public money, so that may still be misleading.

It does make for a better headline, though.

[carol]

Misleading headline!
Reads as though Obama is the second highest in the senate! Is this accidental?

[J. Harvey]

Your article is misleading in many ways. It shows partisanship by intentionally sensationalizing the spending of the whole list and making it appear to the casual reader that all 17.2 billion dollars is because of Clinton and Obama. Try being more upfront, like saying Hillary Clinton and barack Obama weren't even on the front page of names mentioned in spending order. The top two spenders were 1 Democrat and one Republic. Below is the REAL full article you cited incorrectly.

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11276

[Raffi Aidiniantz]

I disagree with the message of this blog post.

$402,000 for a juvenile delinquency program at the Shedd Aquarium and $383,000 for another ethanol research plant? Sounds to me like somebody cares about the youth, and cares about the long term environmental and economic consequences of fossil fuel dependence. Well done Barack Obama!

McCain, although portrayed here as a person who dos not indulge in wasteful spending, happens to be one of the senators who voted for the Iraq war, which has cost taxpayers how many billions of dollars? I have lost count.

So, let's not lose perspective here and obfuscate the situation by applying terms like "pork barrel spending" to one presidential candidate who has tried to improve communities and the environment; while the other has tried to improve the profit margins of oil companies, of which his republican cronies own stock.

The fact that McCain hasn't done any special spending, if anything, shows just how much he doesn't care about improving life for ordinary people in America!

I don't think it's in your interest to play the pork card - you don't want to go there - McCain, you will see, takes the whole pigpen.

[ABog]

This would be really interesting if not for the fact that the supposed "Non-Partisan" group is nothing of the sort. It's a group started by Peter Grace, a staunch Republican.

He's also famous for gross negligence resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people from asbestosis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libby,_Montana#Economy

He chaired the Grace Commission for Ronald Reagan.

To cite him as some sort of neutral public do-gooder is rank dishonesty.

Here's more:

http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2005/09/you_know_citizens_against_gove.html

[Robi]

This needs to be normalized to the population of the respective states before it can mean anything. NY is among the largest and has more complex urban needs than say, midwestern states.

[Max]

John McCain has set up an outstanding straw man argument to fool people into believing he is some sort of amazing fiscal conservative. Underlying part of the definition of so-called pork barrel spending suggests that the executive branch should influence spending of the federal budget. Forbidding representatives from requesting funding for those that they represent merely gives more authority to the executive branch.

I would hardly ever fault a representative for requesting finances on behalf of their district. Undoubtedly, the people in their district would like to request funding for their projects, and it's the representative's role to speak on their behalf (that is, to represent them).

I'd be interested if that book notes how many earmarked bills each candidate had voted for. I'd argue that the amount a candidate is willing to spend as a budgeter is more representative of their conservatism than their willingness to request finances on behalf of the taxpayers they represent.

Of course, that's suggesting that earmarks are the biggest source of bloat in our budget today. That's obviously not true, considering the Iraq War shows us spending over $500 billion (that's B for billion dollar$) overseas. That bloated budget hog, which John McCain unabashedly supports, makes requests (much less approved requests) seem like pennies in comparison.

[captbilly]

Though $17 billion would certainly be nice to have in my bank account, when viewed as a portion of the total federal budget, about $3 trillion) is is a tiny portion (about 1/2 %. Even if we eliminated all such spending it would make no noticable impact on the national debt or budget. In addition these so called pork bills are not givaways to friends or campaign contributors. Earmarks are generally legitimate spending that was not put into a separate bill, or may have been attached to an unrelated bill. I think the tone this writer uses may make people think that earmarks are simply giving away money.

In addition Arizona (McCains state) tends to get much more money back from the Federal government then it pays in taxes, while most of the larger states tend to pay much more in taxes then is spent by the federal governement in those states.

I think earmarks are a bad idea, but that doesn't mean that the money allocated to them is wasted, nor does it necessarilly indicated any wrongdoing on the part of the politician who requested it.

[btbblack]

If all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives.

[Chris Chardon]

What the point here? If it's that McCain is somehow going to cost the taxpayers less money if elected, I direct you to your previous article, which notes that the war in Iraq is costing the USA somewhere around $11 billion (that's billion, with a "B") a DAY. Since McCain wants to keep the US in Iraq for the next hundred yeas, and there are 365 days per year, let's see... Gee, how much does that come out to, anyway?

[Eric]

Whoa. Something good about McCain? I'm shocked.

[lindy]

I really wish these figures were listed on a per-taxpayer basis, both state-wise and national-wise. Wouldn't most people pay $1 a year for a good program for kids? Or a nickel for a program for, let's say, homeless dogs? These numbers are mostly peanuts per taxpayer. It also puts really big numbers such as $1 trillion into a concept we can get a better handle on. And that ain't peanuts.