Congressional Earmarks: 33 Lawmakers Directed More Than $300 Million To Local Projects

The Washington Post:

Thirty-three members of Congress have directed more than $300 million in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or within about two miles of the lawmakers’ own property, according to a Washington Post investigation.

Read the whole story: The Washington Post

Comments

[krist6804]

02:12 PM on 02/07/2012

These 33 special individuals are very concerned about welfare fraud in America? Pork for the wealthy food stamps for the poor all paid for by taxpayers.

[plebian43]

01:33 PM on 02/07/2012

Whose brother in law was it that received a 737 million dollar federal loan from the DOE last year to build a a solar plant in Nevada?

[menckensghost]

12:58 PM on 02/07/2012

Pork barrel welfare!

[Buffalo1966]

12:15 PM on 02/07/2012

Congrats to those of you that found a way to blame this on the "other" party.

There are a lot of D's and a lot of R's. Quit being partisan and realize that the party you are loyal to, isn't loyal to you.

[Golfer59]

01:01 PM on 02/07/2012

I agree you but it's ALWAYS the Republicans complianing about government spending. Then they take government money to benefit their pockets? That stinks!!!

[Sinister Minister]

12:02 PM on 02/07/2012

Hogs feeding at the public trough.

[AJH]

12:00 PM on 02/07/2012

People earmarks aren't the problem, in fact we elect local representatives so they can draw washington's attention to us. To expect them to not attempt to get us funds is the rediculous part as well as a washington process that makes earmarks(public now) the only way they can in any reasonable timeframe. The sad thing is to represent their districts these members have to utilize an earmark process, which isn't that surprising as the budgets flow from the minds of a very few president to house and then members have to clamor for additions to meet their communities needs. Between two equally bad candidates always vote for the one more local to you. More likely to benefit that way.

Publicize them and let their own communities judge them the money spent is chump change compared to waste in defense subsidies to oil companies etc...

I'll tell you one thing if local reps don't use earmarks which should be public to much of our funds will be spent in NY DC and surrounds and wherever the chair of the house fiscal committees are from and thats it. As long as it's public who cares.

[First Blast]

11:42 AM on 02/07/2012

They should be redirecting that money back into the pockets of those workers who originally earned it.

[sabela]

11:42 AM on 02/07/2012

Just another perk of serving in congress. Must be nice.

[pattithepolitico]

11:36 AM on 02/07/2012

Hypocrisy anyone? I'm shocked I tell you!

[krist6804]

11:27 AM on 02/07/2012

Now that this information has been brought to light through investigative reporting, let’s make the 33 congressman prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they received no personal financial gain. Earmark doping is not legal under the constitution, is it?

As described in the story, conduct by the congressman is not much different than the congressional insider trading issue. However, in this case it would be the systematic structuring for personal financial gain through the use of the taxpayers money deployed as public earmarks.

Seventy five years of earmark doping is about to come to an end?

[LightShadow62]

11:07 AM on 02/07/2012

The important question to ask is "How many of these lawmakers have also been against infrastructure spending?" You can bet that the answer is every Republican.

[IsotelusMaximus]

11:53 AM on 02/07/2012

The Democrats aren't interested in infrastructure either. They blew their opportunity when they chose to only spend 6% of the Stimulus on infrastructure. Locally, we got a suicide prevention net on one of our highest bridges for $3,000,000 through the Stimulus. It's a beautiful net but I think they neglected the existence of a higher bridge just two blocks away.

[Bombastic1892]

10:44 AM on 02/07/2012

Once again missing the point that once the money is on the table, it is the job of every representative to bring home the bacon. What we need is a budgeting process before bills are written, instead of going "A stimulus? 900 billion sounds good. Let's just lay that out and see what happens."

[Cantinflas]

10:41 AM on 02/07/2012

Legislators are supposed to represent the interests of their constituents, including getting public works projects, and it shouldn't be surprising that they or their family members might benefit in some ways, some more far-fetched than others. Howerver, what fries me is those hypocrites that go around decrying government spending but always want the cuts to come from someone else's back yard. The ultimate hypocrisy was the ones who voted against the stimulus bill, even after getting money for their districts put in, and then went home and strtted around bragging about what a great job they did for the home folks in getting whatever project passed.

[VPerry24]

12:34 PM on 02/07/2012

We have to come together and finally admit we have but one party! They are all self-serving and do not represent the masses. Until we all realize this we cannot move forward. This bickering back and forth is not getting us anywhere. Vote to change the political system.

[bassboatboy]

10:34 AM on 02/07/2012

Chump Change :)

[biodieselvw]

10:25 AM on 02/07/2012

This is absurd and anyone in congress involved should be voted out, but liberals should embrace this. It is the core of Keynesian economics.

[kimpjones]

11:02 AM on 02/07/2012

Wow, really...you are going to try to blame this on President Obama? Do a little research, I think you will find the majority of these are GOPers!

[kimpjones]

11:37 AM on 02/07/2012

biodieselvw ? Did you even read my comment? It has nothing to do with Obama.

biodieselvw...for some reason they removed your comment!
Anyway, I apoligize for the misunderstanding. When I saw Keynesian, I guess if figured you were making a comment about the President. Again, sorry.