In 2006, the Democrats promised many things to win elections. They were going to change the way the work was done in Washington. One of the major things the democrats promised was to “clean up the appropriations process” and tackle the abuse of earmarks.
They called it “Earmark Reform.” It did not happen.
The Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), which is a private, non-partisan, non-profit organization, recently released their report on fiscal year 2008 appropriations. In their 2008 Congressional Pig Book Summary, CAGW reports:
In fiscal year 2008, Congress stuffed 11,610 projects (the second highest total ever) into the 12 appropriations bills worth $17.2 billion. The 11,610 projects represent a 337 percent increase over the 2,658 projects in fiscal year 2007. The $17.2 billion is a 30 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 total of $13.2 billion. Only the Defense and Homeland Security bills included earmarks in fiscal year 2007, so comparisons of other bills are made between fiscal years 2008 and 2006.
Additionally, Montana has lost clout in securing appropriations. According to CAGW, Montana has fallen two spots from seventh to ninth. As you can see when you read CAGW’s report, those dollars went to other states.
The Western Word 
Hey James,I also saw the same article in the Missoulian. Sometimes blogs help move these things to the front so newspaper editors feel they have to cover them. It is funny that Baucus and Tester take a lot of credit for these earmarks. They are really not that powerful in getting earmarks. Of the two, Baucus is ranked higher in the senate, coming in at #54 in securing appropriations dollars. In another 30 years he should be right there in the top 10. I enjoyed the line about bringing home the bucks, “it mattered more who sits on the appropriations panels” because they don’t. Another good thing I did not see in the article was the word, “powerful,” and Baucus together. He’s fooled the media and many Montanans into thinking he is. Maybe the reporters are starting to see the light?Thanks for stopping by,-Jack
Good for the IR for printing Noelle’s < HREF="http://helenair.com/articles/2008/04/03/state/107st_080403_oinkers.txt" REL="nofollow">piece<> this morning on 5A. “Max wants to rein in spending and be fiscally responsible, but……” There’s always a ‘but’ when the IR/Lee reports on their Dems. Jack, your post < HREF="http://takeitontherun.blogspot.com/2008/03/earmark-vote.html" REL="nofollow">here<> regarding earmarks is a classic, thank you.
Hey James – thanks for stopping by. I did read that part about Tester and Baucus and sheep. 🙂 Considering how nice their campaign teams, sorry, I mean the media in Montana, are to them I don’t expect to see the Sheep award story, although I am sure CAGW sent a copy to all the media in the state.
Hey Mike, I enjoy your blog. Thanks for visiting mine. In regards to Rehberg I am not sure, but I found that the Missoulian reported that Rehberg “expressed support for a proposal that would halt earmarks for six months while a special panel held hearings and made recommendations for reform.” That article is in the words “clean up the appropriations process” linked at the top of the page. I don’t know if that proposal survived or not. We all get used to politicians promising big changes if they get into office. We also are used to the parties (dems and reps) saying place us in the majority and you’ll see changes. The dems ran on changing earmarks and apparently they have not according the CAGW. Some earmarks are important, but politicians should not be two-faced about it.
Jack, you forgot to congratulate Senator Tester for his award in the CAGW report.“The Pig in Sheep’s Clothing Award”to Montana Senators Max Baucus (D) and Jon Tester (D) for $148,950 for the Montana Sheep Institute. I wake up early to see if the IR carries this in tomorrow’s “newspaper”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Jack, but our congressman hasn’t exactly been a leader on the issue of earmark reform either, has he?
But…. wait…. er….. Max….. Forget this! I’m going back to reading the IR!