Stupak-11 Pro-Lifers Ask $4.7 Billion in Earmarks Day After Yea Vote for Health care

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and his 10 pro-life (not) co-horts put in their requests for $4.7 billion in earmarks the day after they switched their health care vote to 'yea.' Talk about buying the vote - but no surprise, ACORN's own attorney and teacher is sitting in the Oval Office:

Stupak's opponent - Republican Dr. Dan Benishek for Congress

From the Sunlight Foundation:

A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the "Stupak 11" released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion--an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker.

Of the eight lawmakers whose 2010 requests were available for comparison, five requested more money this week than they did a year ago: Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa., Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Rep. Charles Wilson, D-Ohio.

The eleven members were the focus of high level pressure by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats because they threatened to vote against the health care reform bill, which passed the House on Sunday, March 21, by a seven vote margin. Granting earmark requests are one of the ways leadership can encourage members to vote their way.

Stupak requested more than $578 million in earmarks, including $125 million for a replacement lock on the Sault Ste. Marie, $25.6 million to build a federal courthouse in Marquette, Mich., $15 million to repaint the Mackinac Bridge and $800,000 to preserve the Quincy Mining Company smelter near Hancock in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

The Stupak earmarks in the above paragraph apparently do not include the $726,409 he received for airports in his district two days before his vote supporting the health care legislation. Find Dr. Dan Benishek's, Stupak's Republican opponent in November elections, here, here and here. Mark Levin interviews Benishek here. Hot Air talks about Benishek here. More on Stupak at The Daily Caller.

Linked by Storm'n Norm'n - Thank you Norm!

Jim Inhofe No. 1 Conservative in Senate: Inhofe on Earmarks and National Defense

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit spoke by phone with Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) this week. Inhofe was named National Journal Magazine's No. 1 Conservative in the Senate, and the only Senator receiving a perfect score for conservatism. As I often say, Senator Inhofe is MY senator. I am proud that the state of Oklahoma is the reddest state in the union, and with Inhofe's long record, there has never been any doubt that he is the "reddest" senator. In the interview with Hoft, we also see that earmarks can affect national defense...are not a simple subject, and are not something to be easily dismissed.

Jim Inhofe

One more thing about my state of Oklahoma. In the 2008 election, McCain received the largest margin of the vote of any state. While almost all of us wished we had a candidate other than McCain, at least we didn't help Barack Obama mount the Oval Office.

Having said that, the interview is about bigger things than being the No. 1 Conservative in the U.S. Senate. Inhofe has some advice on earmarks...what's important and what is not, and it's something we need to be thinking about. Do we really know the bottom line of earmarking? Apparently we do not, and neither does the Republican leadership.

Inhofe sees the Republican leadership's move to ban all earmarks as not very smart (he might have said "dumb"). Earmarks make-up 1-1/2% of spending, and according to the Senator, if the money is not spent in earmarking, it will go to Obama to spend. This puts some defense money in the hands of the President and Democrats:

If you stop an earmark it doesn't save one penney. All it does is take that money and gives it to the President of the United States. That's the way the system works. It goes to the executive branch.

Assuming this is correct, we need to change the way the system works. If money for earmarks - not allocated and spent, goes back into the Executive hopper for distribution...that's nothing short of wrong.  If the money is not spent, it should not be spent.

Update 3-13-10 6:28 EST:
Senator Inhofe was just on FOXNews live with Rick Fulbaum. Inhofe said where the system is going awry is in the authorization and appropriating procesess. Everything spent should be first authorized, and then appropriated. That's not happening. I understood him to say that legislators take to the floor to appropriate an expense without authorizing it first.

He has also introduced legislation to replace President Obama's 20% ban on discretionary spending in the 2011 budget, and replace it with discretionary spending capped at 2008 levels. According to Inhofe, Obama's 20% ban means nothing because the 2010 budget was bloated by 20%. His legislation actually saves 20% by going back to 2008 discretionary spending levels.

On national defense and earmarks:

I'm not about to allow these people with this earmark program to put everything in the hands of Obama and that's what we'd be doing."

Hoft asked about Inhofe's contentious relationship with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and the senate race heating up in her district with three Republicans challenging her seat. This was Inhofe's comment (an apparently one he has made often):

Defeating Barbara Boxer is not a victory, it's a contribution to mankind.

I hope you'll visit Gateway Pundit, listen to the audio of this interview, and consider Inhofe's comments on earmarking and national defense.

War of the Earmarks: House Republicans Ban All Earmarks: Dems Ban Earmarks for For-Profit Companies

There is a war for the most dramatic earmark ban in the U.S. House of Representatives. Who takes the prize: Dems or Republicans? 

Democrats announced a ban on earmarks going to "private companies." Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) announced today that House Republicans are banning all earmarks for the rest of this Congressional year, in an effort to quash "back room deals" to buy votes for health care, including funds to nonprofits, such as universities:

Pence said Democrats were cutting "backroom deals" to persuade reluctant House Democrats to vote for the president's proposal, and said "the American people want us to change business as usual." Source: The Daily Caller

Democrats said their ban "is a key step in restoring trust in Congress. They think we are idiots.

It ensures that for-profit companies no longer reap the rewards of congressional earmarks and limits the influence of lobbyists on members of Congress. 

While the story seems to be that earmark spending has little to do with reducing spending, maybe the real story is what the GOP intimated: quashing back room deals to buy votes for health care.