Michelle Malkin » The porkers’ club

The porkers’ club

By Michelle Malkin • July 11, 2007 08:15 AM

Porkbusters and the Washington Examiner have teamed up to bring you a very illuminating Earmark Reform Index. You can see where your senators rank and also view by vote:

The Index brings together in one place all the data about how everybody who served in the Senate in 2005-2007 voted on 12 key opportunities to say “yes” or “no” to genuine earmark reforms when the Senate clerk called their names. The Examiner and Porkbusters consulted knowledgeable Senate insiders to insure that each of these votes represented a real chance to make a difference for taxpayers.

Check the data and see where your state’s two senators rank (higher ratings are better). If you think they should do better, tell them. And if you live in a state that has one or a couple of senators who score highly on the Index, let them know you appreciate their efforts. Either way, let your senators know where you stand, so they’ll know where they should stand the next time the Senate clerk calls their name.

The News Journal leans on Delaware’s delegations to disclose their earmarks.

The Clovis News Journal lambastes Dems for not doing enough on the issue.

But it’s a bipartisan problem, of course. More updates here and here.

***

Roll Call editorializes for more disclosure:

After much sturm und drang, the House has a full disclosure policy on earmarks, at least as far as appropriations are concerned. Now the Senate is heading for turmoil on the issue, with even the August recess in doubt.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is threatening to keep the chamber in session during August if leaders do not agree to adopt a Senate rule requiring full earmark disclosure.

Vacation plans aside, we think that on the merits Senate leaders should accede to DeMint so disclosure of spending requests is not delayed until President Bush signs an ethics reform measure that still has not even gone to a House-Senate conference.

The House, in one of its first actions in the 110th Congress, passed a rule requiring disclosure of the sponsorship of all special benefit requests by Members in appropriations, authorization and tax bills. The Senate lopsidedly passed similar requirements — though excluding tax bills — but as part of its ethics reform bill, not as a Senate rule.

House implementation of its rule surely has been rocky. Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) tried to delay disclosure until appropriations were at the House-Senate conference stage. A Republican-media uproar forced him to guarantee disclosure before a bill hits the House floor.

The House rule is still weak when it comes to taxes. Disclosure is required only when a tax provision affects 10 or fewer taxpayers. But at least the House’s policy is set and working as the chamber processes appropriations.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Uncategorized

Printer Friendly

comments (12)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

#1

On July 11th, 2007 at 8:25 am, Mack08 said:

SHOCKER!!!! Bipartisan Porkers yes, but the majority of those with the best grades are Republicans (for now anyway). Just wait until the pandering for votes begins; the bacon will fly then.
#2

On July 11th, 2007 at 8:42 am, josetheguerilla said:

I have one Senator who scored a 91, Senator Ensign. My other Senator, Dingy Harry scores an embarrassing 16. Thanks, for link MM.
#3

On July 11th, 2007 at 8:50 am, Peejz said:

Levin and Liberal Debbie at 25!
#4

On July 11th, 2007 at 9:28 am, geminicontender said:

Unfortunately I live in CA. Feinstein and Boxer are two of the worst (16.6 & 25.00 respectively). This state likes to believe it is leading the way….HA! All the whack jobs have made their way here in the last 30 years and i am planning on going somewhere other than this loony bin. Feinstein and Boxer will not likely ever be voted out.
#5

On July 11th, 2007 at 9:40 am, Fineous Reese said:

Ugh, no surprise, the Maryland senators are 0.0 and 8.33.
#6

On July 11th, 2007 at 9:54 am, On-my-soap-box said:

Wow. In the top 10 best, 1 is a Dem. In the bottom 10 worst, 1 is a Rep.

I must say, I am shocked!

/sarc off
#7

On July 11th, 2007 at 10:00 am, The Raging Republican said:

Did anyone notice the Republican to democrat ratio at the top of the list (the Good ratings)? Its a ridiculous discrepancy. Only 2 out of the top 30 rated senators are Democrat. And they say Republicans are spending us to death. Gonna end the corruption in Washington? They better take a look in the mirror.
#8

On July 11th, 2007 at 10:20 am, uhangtight said:

We need to determine how we can get term limits passed, which will be difficult considering this group of morons would have to vote this through.

I guess the best we can work towards is to make lobbying guidelines more strict. For example, you cannot be lobbyed by a corporation/individual unless they are a constituent. That means that the corporation/individual must live/reside/be headquartered within your district.

I think that is a good start. But, we need term limits 2 terms for the Senate and 4 terms for the House of Representatives. How can we get this done within the next 10 years?
#9

On July 11th, 2007 at 10:21 am, On-my-soap-box said:

On July 11th, 2007 at 10:00 am, The Raging Republican said:
Did anyone notice the Republican to democrat ratio at the top of the list (the Good ratings)?

Yep, I did. I stuck to the top 10 though. They didn’t need my help to look worse than they already do.
#10

On July 11th, 2007 at 10:22 am, On-my-soap-box said:

Someone reach over and wake up uhangtight, he/she is dreaming.
#11

On July 11th, 2007 at 1:40 pm, iowavette said:

For representing a farm state Grassley performed better than I anticipated. That’s a tough constituency, folks. He’s a good one although someone needs to get between he and Pat Leahy. Harkin, on the other hand, is no surprise at 16 and change. He’s a plaintiff’s attorney after all. I’d sure like to know what the earmarks cover. They must benefit the eastern side of the state.
#12

On July 11th, 2007 at 5:39 pm, jferg49 said:

weeeeeeeeeee weeeeeeeeeeee…squeal like a pig boy!…. weeeeeeeeee… weeeeeeeeee…again, this is our ELECTED officials, screwing the taxpayers. They may bring money into their state, but let’s face it, the money mostly goes to their friends, family and supporters…not the general public…I view this as criminal. We give them enough, they get free medical care for life, they get a retirement for life after a few years in office, they get so many perks it’s obscene…they are no longer servants of the public, but they have become American royalty….they come into the Congress with good ideas, and leave as millionaires…how do they do that?….they spend millions to get elected and make what? about $150K?….TERM LIMITS are needed