I received this release a couple days ago from U.S. Senate candidate Eric Wargotz. While he uses it to hammer his opponent, the longtime entrenched Democrat Senator Barbara Mikulski, there's more to the Sun story by Paul West that Eric cites.
“The Baltimore Sun reported that Maryland’s senior U. S. senator won $10.5 million in federal pork barrel spending for three of her most generous campaign contributors.
“During a time of budgetary crisis in Washington, it is irresponsible for Senator Mikulski to use her powerful position on the Senate Appropriations Committee to enrich her campaign supporters. Further, I find it appalling that she would hide behind the troops to justify her actions.
“The Pentagon didn’t ask for any of the funding requests (totaling $42.1 million, including the $10.5 million already referenced) the senator received. If Senator Mikulski thinks she knows better than the military does, she owes it to her constituents to explain why.
“Senator Mikulski should eschew the politics of the past and devote her energies towards participating in the healthcare debate raging on Capitol Hill. Despite more than three decades of involvement in this issue, she has been oddly absent now that the debate is here.
“Maryland’s taxpayers deserve Senator Mikulski’s advocacy more than her campaign contributors do.”
In looking at the Sun story, it's apparent that not just Mikulski shared in the Maryland goodie distribution, and it was as bipartisan as it could be considering our Congressional delegation has just one Republican.
I'll admit it's good that Dr. Wargotz pointed this out, particularly since these projects went to companies who invested heavily in Mikulski's election, but then the question will arise as to whether he won't be equally as guilty if elected. While earmarks truly aren't a large part of the overall budget, they make for feel-good press when the incumbent comes back hat in hand for votes at election time.
Unfortunately, neither party has made much of an effort to combat the practice and it's noteworthy that President Obama, who claimed to be opposed to earmarks throughout his Presidential campaign (as did John McCain, who is quoted in the Sun story) hasn't vetoed any spending package laden with earmarks. So to me this is business as usual.
While a number of critics wish to pinch off the campaign finance end of the equation, my better idea is to reduce the incentive for companies to shop for candidates willing to shovel lucrative government contracts their way by cutting the size and scope of the federal government. Perhaps this won't work quite as well in the defense sector as others, but the first step is turning around the runaway train called federal spending run amok.