Who is the biggest earmarker of them all?

[hyphenate]

Who is the biggest earmarker of them all?

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., takes the cake, with 60 earmarks worth $123 million in the latest spending bill before the Senate.

But he's hardly alone. The budget watchdog group has released its latest list breaking down the earmarks, lawmaker-by-lawmaker, in the $410 billion bill set to come up for a vote by the end of the day. The bill would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, with an 8.5 percent increase over last year and billions of dollars in pet projects.

Here's a breakdown of the top 20 earmarking senators and the value of their solo earmarks:

1) Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. -- $122,804,900

2) Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. -- $114,484,250

3) Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. -- $85,691,491

4) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- $76,899,425

5) Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- $75,908,475

6) Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska -- $74,000,750

7) Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa -- $66,860,000

8) Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. -- $53,133,500

9) Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. -- $51,186,000

10) Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii -- $46,380,205

11) Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. -- $39,228,250

12) Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. -- $36,547,100

13) Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt. -- $36,161,125

14) Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. -- $35,577,250

15) Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. -- $27,169,750

16) Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- $26,628,613

17) Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. -- $25,320,000

18) Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis. -- $23,832,000

19) Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. -- $21,952,250

20) Former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. -- $19,588,625


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/10/raw-data-earmarking-senators-billion-spending/

[mediaman007]

1. Nice Link! Fox :-•

[hyphenate]

4. Meh!

I just posted from the link, but it's supposed to be from Taxpayers for Common Sense, and not from Fox. i don't know if Taxpayers is right-winged or left-winged, I just thought it was nice to see a list of who wanted what from the bill. At the very least, it is good enough to argue with right-wingers who like to say that we are the party of "tax and spend" politics--it provides excellent points that both parties are known to spend, just that liberals prefer to get the money from someplace, unlike right-wingers who simply want to spend.

[Bjorn Against]

2. Of course the little detail that Fox News or any of the other so called "news" networks will mention

Is what these earmarks are for. We constantly hear them go on and on about earmarks, but it is always in very general terms and it is rare that we get a breakdown of where these earmarks are going. I live in Minnesota, a couple years ago many of you may remember that we had the bridge that was traveled over more than any other in the state collapse into the Mississippi River. We needed an earmark to get that bridge replaced, it was very widely publicized and virtually everyone knew it was needed so there was no controversy over that earmark. Most people don't even realize it was an earmark however, they simply ramble on and on about how bad earmarks are without even realizing that they benefit from many of these earmarks. It is complete laziness on the part of the media to keep going after earmarks without any discussion of what those earmarks are. They can go after the unneeded ones all they want, but let's stop pretending all earmarks are automatically bad.

[rurallib]

3. I thought John Kyl was #1? Thought I read that yesterday.

did he pull a bunch out?