CCAGW’s 2007 Congressional Ratings came out yesterday and you may be wondering how the presidential nominees did.
• Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) 2007 rating was 10 percent, making his lifetime score 18 percent. The 2008 Congressional Pig Book contained 53 earmarks worth $97.4 million for Sen. Obama, including $1,648,850 for the Shedd Aquarium.
• Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) received the worst possible rating in 2007 with 0 percent, while his lifetime rating is 22 percent. According to the Pig Book, Sen. Biden had 70 earmarks for a total of $119.7 million in fiscal year 2008, including $246,100 for the Grand Opera House in Wilmington.
• Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) received a score of 100* percent and has a lifetime rating of 88, has never requested nor received a single earmark, and has pledged to veto any spending bill that contains any earmarks.
*Sen. McCain was only present for 11 of the 35 Senate votes that CCAGW tallied. Therefore, he was not eligible for the Taxpayer Super Hero Award
Filed under: Earmarks, In The News, Pork, Waste
[...] – CAGW also issued their report on the candidates – this isn’t very surprising at all: • Sen. [...]
[...] – CAGW also issued their report on the candidates – this isn’t very surprising at all: • Sen. [...]
[...] Biden voted to fund the Bridge to Nowhere that Palin eventually nixed. In his first three years, Obama requested nearly $1 billion in earmarks — that’s more than 34 times the number of earmarks Palin secured for Wasilla. Obama [...]
What does it mean that McCain has a lifetime score of 88% if he’s never asked for or received a single earmark?
Just trying to make sense of it.
[...] Book from the private, non-partisan watchdog group Concerned Citizens Against Government Waste: Pork in the Presidential Race The Swine Line Sen. Barack Obamas (D-Ill.) 2007 rating was 10 percent, making his lifetime score 18 percent. [...]
How do I read this score card, what does it mean?
What does it mean that Obama had a 2007 socre of 10%?
Courtney,
It means there were times McCain voted in favor of bills that contained pork. He has never asked for it himself.
Look at it this way:
Say there is a bill titled “Free milk for poor kids that are thirsty.” If people vote against that bill, then all the headline says is “____ voted against free milk for kids that are thirsty” and that’s all most people will ever hear about it. What isn’t in the headlines or even the article most times is that page 313 of the bill said “all the milk must be pruchased from xyz dairy in Wisconsin for $50 a gallon” and xyz Dairy is owned by a buddy and campaign contributor for Senator __________ who wrote the bill.
What McCain pledges to do is veto all such things. When he says “I will make them famous and you will know their names!” He means to say that he will say “I vetoed the ‘Free Milk for Poor Kids that are Thirsty’ bill because on page 317 it said that all the milk had to be bought foir $50 a gallon from XYZ Dairy which is owned by ____ who is a buddy and campaign contributor of Senator _____ who wrote the bill.”
Rock,
Simpy put the lower the number, the more wasteful the person is of taxpayers dollars.
For example, the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago (great place.. check it out if you’re ever there) is a Non-Profit, Private Corporation.
After receiving a campaign contribution from the President of the Aquarium, Barak Obama created an ‘ear mark’ expense in a bill that provided over $1.5 millon to the Shedd Aquarium: a non-profit that doesn’t pay taxes and charges over $30 for admission.
Also worth noting is that Barak ear-marked millions for PRIVATE, non-profit, non tax-paying hospitals in Chicago. Interestingly enough, the lobbyist who helped convince Obama to make those ear-marks happen was Hunter Biden, son of , you guess it, Joe Biden.
[...] Source: http://swineline.org/2008/08/28/pork-in-the-presidential-race/ [...]
Shame on Obama, but what did you expect?
[...] public links >> alexa Pork in the Presidential Race Saved by jpmello on Sat 18-10-2008 A better search engine (at least for me) Saved by IamWeirdyay [...]
I follow your posts for quite a long time and should tell that your articles always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers.
I must say, I could not agree with you in 100%, but its just my opinion, which indeed could be wrong.
p.s. You have a very good template . Where did you find it?