Drew Griffin
Special Investigations Unit Correspondent
We’re waiting to find out if the U.S. Senator’s earmark requests this year will jam the Senate Appropriations computer. The deadline for getting those pet project requests in is next Friday, April 25. And if the requests are anything like their counterparts in the House, the computer will experience a “slow down”, as house staffers called it, due to the load of pet projects being requested.
But we’ve learned there is going to be a significant taxpayer savings from at least two U.S. Senators. Which two? Guess?
Senator Barak Obama, who last year requested 112 federal funding projects worth $330 million dollars, will have NO requests this year. He made the announcement while saying he no longer believes in the earmark process. What a difference a year makes.
Not one to fall too far behind the candidate she is chasing, Senator Hillary Clinton’s staff told us the Senator from New York is scaling back her requests, too. While not releasing her requests to CNN, the Senator’s staff sent a message saying the Senator will limit her earmarks to “the most critical needs for New York and America.” Last year Clinton’s requests amounted to $342 million.
So depending on how much Sen. Clinton scales back, and given Sen. Obama is saying no earmarks at all, the race for the democratic nomination may have just saved taxpayers nearly $700 million dollars.
| Taj |
April 16th, 2008 1:37 pm ET Drew, $700 million is just the tip of the iceberg. Govt collects trillions of dollors in the form of taxes from people, corporations. We need to hold them responsible for every dollor they waste. Pet projects, ear mark, pork barrel, military, GSA, farm subsidies, welfare, grants to foreign govt etc to name a few. Our SS, medicare, infrastructure, food, city govts, state govts, fed govt etc, etc are all falling part. We need to spend our $$ to people in the US for our social programs, creating a Robust economy. |
|
| xtina |
April 16th, 2008 2:28 pm ET great. now why don’t they both show support for an immediate cutting of the fed. gasoline tax? that is such a simple, quick way for washington to show they care. |
|
| Melissa |
April 16th, 2008 2:54 pm ET I don’t believe a word from Hillary’s camp. I remember last year’s earmark blogs where she never responded to CNN. Now that she feels pressure from Obama’s camp, she’s trying to sell us she’s scaling back. What does it matter when we the people aren’t given the information as to what she has earmarked. |
|
| Doug Pierson Tohatchi, NM |
April 16th, 2008 2:55 pm ET All I can say is AH FOOEY! |
|
| Joseph Kowalski, North Huntingdon, PA |
April 16th, 2008 3:49 pm ET I’d be more impressed if either of these candidates had lead the charge to do away with all legislative pet project requests by introducing a bill to do so, and fighting for it’s passage. |
|
| Susan |
April 16th, 2008 4:17 pm ET I believe Senator Obama over Senator Clinton any day. Senator McCain already requests no earmarks. What about the rest.? We the citizens of each state are just as responsible. We keep sending these same politicians back to Washington. All politics are local. To curb this feasting, it will all have to start at the local level in each state. The president should also be given a line item veto, so that he/she can strike out the pork hiding in any bill passed by the Congress. Susan |
|
| Joe Q. Public |
April 16th, 2008 4:31 pm ET Earmarks will be a forgotten issue after the election. It is doubtful the members of congress will go along with any attempt to curb earmarks which are allowed by the constitution. This should be filed under pandering. |
|
| Paris |
April 16th, 2008 4:59 pm ET CNN why my comments on this are not being posted? |
|
| Mrs. R. |
April 16th, 2008 5:14 pm ET *While not releasing her requests to CNN, the Senator’s staff sent a message saying the Senator will limit her earmarks to “the most critical needs for New York and America.”* Sad. If Senator Clinton isn’t willing to make public her requests, then perhaps they shouldn’t be made at all. Secrecy doesn’t build trust. I equate secrecy w/sneakiness and that’s not a leadership style I support. We the public provide the money and I want to know how it’s spent. I agree that earmarks need to go. |
|
| Bryan Price |
April 16th, 2008 5:42 pm ET I’m tired of hearing about earmarks. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is the war and how much we’re spending on it. It’s truly sad that the talk is about so little of the actual budget, and the budget buster isn’t even put on the books! I’ll start worrying about earmarks when they actually start to become major parts of the budget. Bryan |
|
| AZM |
April 16th, 2008 5:59 pm ET 700 million… Wow… We pay before they get there… and for years after… gotta love politicians |
|
| Sarah |
April 16th, 2008 7:24 pm ET Drew…thanks for keeping on this story. |
|
| Kent, Illinois |
April 16th, 2008 7:28 pm ET If Hillary had any chance at going against McCain in November she would not have any earmarks this time. She knows her bid for the presidency is all over. She may as well get all she can for New York. Obama will have no earmarks because he knows McCain will not have any this time. Obama 08 |
|
| Rob, Arvada, CO |
April 16th, 2008 7:58 pm ET Barack Obama raised “all-in” with no ear-marks. Sorry, Hillary, you lose all your chips! |
|
| Annie Kate |
April 16th, 2008 9:26 pm ET I hate to be cynical but for Clinton to cut back her earmarks and Obama eliminate is in an election year where both are running a hotly contested campaign is not impressive - it just seems like one more political trick to gull the voters into thinking they represent real change and savings to the nation. John McCain has not asked for earmarks for YEARS - that is believable and impressive to know that he actually practices what he preaches not only in an election year but in all the other years as well. Annie Kate |
|
| Janna |
April 16th, 2008 10:31 pm ET So Obama changed his view completely on this issue? Whatever happened to “Judgement from day one?” |
|
| lee from Treasure Island Fl |
April 17th, 2008 2:43 pm ET We still have not seen Hillary’s earmarks from last year… yet Obama posted his for all tax payers to see. |
|
| Jim |
April 22nd, 2008 7:57 pm ET It is amazing that Obama and Clinton seem to paint themselves as the beacon of hope for tax payers when the two of them, particularly, Obama, seem to keep voicing the need for more government programs and taxation. It would be better if our nation either institutes a flat tax of 10% across the board and send grants to private firms to institute government mandated programs than expand the government. Go McCain! |
|
| janie |
April 24th, 2008 10:37 am ET some ear marks are good and much needed, bears dna=no |
|
| Jeanette Loos |
July 1st, 2008 3:36 pm ET I am not totally against earmarks,but I think there should be a spending cap in place and these earmarks carefully reviewed.I honestly do not understand why our politicians have to lie about what they can actually do if they become president of the united states. |
|
|
Leave Your Comment
|
||
A behind the scenes look at “Anderson Cooper 360°” and the stories it covers, written by Anderson Cooper and the show’s correspondents and producers. Insight you can’t find anywhere else.
For more details, read our tips on how to win 360° approval for comments.
Send your instant feedback to Anderson Cooper 360°.
- Thorny thicket of Bill and Hillary Clinton conflicts?
- Genetic testing
- The Shot: What is it?
- Knut feeling the credit crunch
- Voices of hope in the face of evil
- The straight scoop
- Just in time for the holidays…
- Extreme Challenges: The health of the economy, the health of all Americans
- Extreme Challenges: How Obama should fight al Qaeda and its allies
- Where the rubber meets the road - Automakers, welcome back to Congress

