Ellington

Mississippi's Republican U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker said yesterday that he is not supporting a proposed $1.2 trillion spending bill because it is filled with earmark spending although he inserted more earmarks into the bill than almost any other senator.

"I am committed to reducing government spending and getting our fiscal house in order. That is why I joined with my Republican colleagues in November to ban earmarks for two years. The ban on earmarks is an important first step to help reduce spending and change the way business is done in Washington," Wicker said in a statement. "If Congress does not act, the government will run out of money this Saturday. Rather than jam through a massive omnibus bill, we should pass a reasonable, short-term resolution so the newly elected Congress can decide how to best use taxpayer dollars."

Nonetheless, Wicker was second only to Sen. Thad Cochran in earmark requests this year, according to the nonpartisan government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
The Washington Post reported today that Wicker requested more than 200 earmarks worth $415 million in the bill. Cochran sponsored 263 earmarks worth $522.2 million.

On Nov. 30, Cochran voted against an amendment of the Food Safety Modernization Act that would have imposed a two-year halt on earmarking money by the Senate. He played both sides of the aisle during a Republican voice vote warning that he remained "unconvinced" of the measure but added that "If this is what it takes to get Congress focused on the real steps needed to get our fiscal house in order, then I will take the views of my Republican colleagues to heart."

Unlike Cochran, Wicker voted in favor of the Nov. 30 two-year moratorium.

Wicker requested $3.6 billion in earmarks for Fiscal Year 2011, setting him only behind Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu, who requested $4.4 billion that same budget year. Cochran actually requested less than Wicker for that budget year, having pushed for $2.4 billion, Taxpayers for Common Sense reports.

"Wicker wants to continue to get the praise of his constituents and send pork projects home, but he also wants to be loved by Republican leadership in D.C. and vote against pork barrel spending and earmarks. You can't have it both ways," said Mississippi Democratic Party Chairman Jamie Franks.

Wicker's press secretary Rick Curtsinger said Wicker has not pulled any of his earmark requests from the bill, but said Wicker opposes the bill.

"Earmarks in this bill were requested back in February, but Sen. Wicker now opposes the bill and has voted for the earmark ban," said Curtsinger, who confirmed that senators can still request pulling earmarks even though the bill has already been written.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan organization, states that banning earmarks will have no impact on reducing deficits and getting debt under control. "The total amount earmarked in a given year is generally no more than 1 percent of the entire federal budget," the organization reports adding that funds "spared from earmarking wouldn't simply remain in the federal treasury" but are already "part of the annual pot of money that is slated to be spent, and certainly would be spent elsewhere if there were no such thing as earmarks."

Previous Comments

ID

161304

Comment

The last paragraph sums up everything. Mississippi needs earmarks and pledging to oppose what we desperately need is silly. Instead, we'll cede power to the gov. and allow another administration to direct monies. We should all embrace less gov. spending, but keep the 1% of earmarks.

Author

jbreland

Date

2010-12-16T15:37:01-06:00

ID

161306

Comment

Sens. Cornyn of Texas and Thune of South Dakota also oppose the bill, even though they themselves have millions of earmarks in the bill. Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2010-12-16T16:27:02-06:00