Elected to the Senate in 2004, Sen. Coburn is a member of the committees on Judiciary, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Intelligence, Indian Affairs, and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Before his tenure in the Senate, Sen. Coburn served in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2001.
Sen. Coburn is probably best known for his opposition to pork barrel spending. In 2005, he tried to block $453 million for two bridges in Alaska, including the infamous “bridge to nowhere.” Sen. Coburn’s attempt failed overwhelmingly. A Senate committee recently approved a Coburn-sponsored bill calling for a database tracking all earmark requests made by lawmakers.
In May, Sen. Coburn wrote to the two chairs of the fiscal commission in favor of a freeze in the Pentagon’s “base” budget (funding for things other than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) over the next two fiscal years.
Sen. Coburn, an obstetrician, has been dubbed “The Senate’s Dr. No.” The senator has used – some say abused – the power of a single senator to hold up legislation he or she does not favor. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has said of Coburn’s tactics: l think it’s a way an individual tries to exacerbate their power, and it’s really unfortunate.” A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) added: “No wonder it’s so hard to get things done when a handful of junior members insist on a their-way-or-the-highway approach to legislating.”
In today’s Roll Call, Kathleen Hunter writes that, with mid-term elections approaching, Congress continues to play politics with serious fiscal issues.
Democrats, with a few exceptions, are the only ones submitting House earmark requests this year, which Republicans hope will strengthen their hand to portray the majority party as oblivious to deficit concerns.
The circumstances surrounding this year’s appropriations debate are unprecedented. Republicans, minus a handful of rogue lawmakers, are adhering to a self-imposed one-year ban on all earmark requests. That puts Democrats — who had hoped to snag the high ground on earmarks when they adopted a permanent ban on Congressionally directed spending to for-profit companies — in a potentially vulnerable position.
Republicans are eager to use Democrats’ earmark requests and spending proposals to try to paint the majority as fiscally irresponsible. Although Democrats dismiss the GOP earmark ban as an election-year gimmick, the fact that the Democrats would have almost exclusive ownership over earmarks during debate on this year’s bills is just one more reason they are treading carefully.
Democratic leaders, faced with spending fatigue within their moderate ranks, wrestled with whether to adopt a budget resolution, before settling on a one-year “budget-enforcement” document, which they only narrowly adopted before leaving town for the July Fourth recess.
Yesterday, The Hill reported that House Republicans were beginning to seek less-stringent rules on earmarks in anticipation of regaining a majority. It’s unfortunate that Washington continues to play politics with little regard for the country’s fiscal future.
Earlier this year, we applauded lawmakers for taking steps to show their commitment to earmark reform, with the Democrats supporting a ban on earmarks for for-profit entities and Republicans pushing a year-long ban on all earmarks. Unfortunately, these measures are beginning to look like they were introduced simply for political expediency.
According to The Hill, “Senior Republicans are pushing for a policy that would allow earmarks, the provisions lawmakers insert in spending bills to fund projects in their districts, but would make the process more transparent. House GOP leaders imposed a temporary moratorium on all earmarks in March in a bid to demonstrate fiscal discipline in an election year.”
This type of positioning is probably why citizens aren’t very happy with Washington these days. It’s time for lawmakers to get serious about fiscal responsibility. Earmarks should be eliminated not just for for-profits, and not just for one year, but to all groups and permanently.
Our country’s spending and debt situation explained in a fast-paced motion graphics video (runtime is 2:20 minutes):
According to a recent GWU Battleground poll, nine in 10 likely voters are at least “somewhat” concerned about the current level of government spending. 74 are “extremely” or “very” concerned. And 58 percent think the level of spending is unsustainable.
Is the public right? Is Washington bankrupting America? Some facts from the video:
Spendingper household has risen over 40 percent in the last 10 years – and is set to do so again in the next 10 – pushing debt (and interest on the debt) to unprecedented levels. But that’s just a result of past spending.
Add in our government’s $106 trillion in future spending commitments – that cannot be paid for – and it becomes clear that our government’s spending is setting the country down a path toward bankruptcy.
We can solve it, but politicians will have to make tough choices.
Increasing taxes can’t do the trick ($106 trillion is equivalent to taking all of the taxable income from every American nine times over), nor is it fair to saddle taxpayers with a problem created by government irresponsibility.
We need real spending reform. Merely returning to the spending per household levels of the 1990s would balance the budget in three years.
Yet, policies under Bush and Obama have made the problem worse, not better: budget cuts that pale in comparison to spending increases, more lobbyists, more earmarks, expanded spending on autopilot programs like Social Security and Medicare, and savings gimmicks that don’t amount to meaningful change.
Reform can only be achieved if the public is informed and engaged. You can start by doing the following:
(1) Share this video with at least 5 friends, family and coworkers.
(2) If you haven’t already, subscribe to receive emails from us (you’ll be first to receive our videos and other timely info about economic policy).
——————
Below are sources for data featured in the video:
Our spending is unsustainable. Over the last 10 years, federal government spending per household increased by over 40 percent….and will do so again in the next 10 years.
Source: calculations based on data from the Office of Management and Budget for spending totals (Historical Table 1.1 for spending in 2000 and 2010; Summary Table S-1 for 2020) from the FY2011 Budget of the United States and the Census Bureau Table HH-1 for number of households (note: 2020 household figure determined based on an extrapolation of 2000-2010 household growth).
Over the last 10 years, federal government debt per household increased by almost 70 percent….and will do so again in the next 10 years.
Source: calculations based on data from the Office of Management and Budget (Historical Table 7.1 for debt in 2000 and 2010 and sum of “Debt Held by Government accounts” and “Debt held by the public” from Summary Table S-14 for 2020) and the Census Bureau Table HH-1 for number of households (note: 2020 household figure determined based on an extrapolation of household growth).
Meanwhile, median American household income decreased by about 1 percent in the last 10 years.
Source: Census Bureau Table H-6 (inflation adjusted dollars).
In 10 years, interest payments on the debt will more than quadrupled.
Source: calculation based on data from the Office of Management and Budget (Summary Table S-4).
In 10 years, interest payments on the debt plus autopilot programs (like Social Security and Medicare) will consume 90 cents of every federal dollar.
Source: calculation based on Office of Management and Budget Summary Tables S-1 and S-4.
Our spending is only a fraction of the commitments made. The total value of our future spending commitments – that cannot be paid for – is $106 trillion.
Source: $106.4 trillion represents the net present value of the federal government’s unfunded liabilities as calculated in Forbes by former Treasury Department economist Bruce Bartlett based on actuarial tables from the Social Security Administration and data from the Medicare Trustees Report.
106 trillion dollars = selling every home in the U.S….5 times over.
Source: Based on the Federal Flow of Funds Report from the Federal Reserve, Table B.100, line 3.
106 trillion dollars = taking all of the income of every American.…9 times over.
Source: Based on Personal Income of $12 trillion for 2009 (most recent year available) from National Income and Product Account Table 2.1 of the U.S. Government’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.
106 trillion dollars = selling every household item of value in the U.S….twice.
Source: Source: Based on the Federal Flow of Funds Report from the Federal Reserve, Table B.100, line 42.
Our spending is solvable. By merely reducing government spending per household to 1990s levels.…we could balance the budget in three years. Our spending is solvable unless Washington won’t solve it. Our spending is bankrupting America.
Source: Based on revenue projections from the Office of Management and Budget in Summary Table S-1 from the FY2011 Budget of the United States; the 1990s average is adjusted for inflation and taken from Historical Table 1.1 from the OMB); household projections are based on an extrapolation of Census Bureau Table HH-1.
Yesterday, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee withdrew all of his earmark requests for fiscal 2011. We applaud the move and encourage other lawmakers to follow suit. The Senator defended his decision, “…given our country’s fiscal condition, I could not in good conscience keep my name next to any earmark requests this year.”
According to Citizens Against Government Waste, there were 9,129 earmarks in fiscal year 2010 amounting to $16.5 billion. As the current economic climate has required everybody to make sacrifices, Washington apparently never got the memo. The fact that such wasteful spending is allowed to continue at such levels is just another example of how out-of-touch Congress is.
Even putting aside the actual cost of earmarks, how they are passed also continues to be a problem. Sen. Corker continued, “It is not necessarily the overall cost of federal earmarks…it’s the process, which is fundamentally flawed and lacks oversight.”
As Congress continues to delay passing a budget, one of its fundamental responsibilities, there is no reason lawmakers should be making backroom deals to fund their pet projects. It is irresponsible and, frankly, a backwards way to go about business. Should we have expected anything less?
Here’s some actual, real-life good news: the Obama Administration yesterday and Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today both reported that the number of earmarks from fiscal year 2010 is down from fiscal year 2009.
Unfortunately, That’s where the good news stops…
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director, Peter Orszag, wrote on his blog that the total cost of earmarks was down 27 percent while the sheer number was down 17 percent between FY 2009 and FY 2010. In its review, OMB found 9,192 earmarks totaling nearly $11.1 billion in 2010 appropriations bills.
However, CAGW did its own review and came up with a vastly different amount. While CAGW found a similar number of earmarks, they calculated the total cost to taxpayers at $16.5 billion. CAGW claims earmarks “declined by 10.2 percent, from 10,160 in fiscal year 2009 to 9,129 in fiscal year 2010, while the total tax dollars spent to fund them decreased by 15.5 percent, from $19.6 billion to $16.5 billion.”
How is this discrepancy possible? Is it possible that the White House and Citizens Against Government Waste don’t have the same definition of an earmark?
Politico reported “CAGW’s researchers found 81 earmarks worth $6.5 billion that they say circumvent transparency rules. In the 2010 Defense Appropriations Act, for example, $6 billion was earmarked anonymously.”
In his blog post Orszag wrote, “All too often, earmarks are an easy vehicle for special interest deal-making.” Today, CAGW president Tom Schatz said, “[Members of Congress] have noticed that it is popular to posture as an anti-earmarker. Unfortunately… most members of Congress still aren’t willing to eliminate the practice and why meaningful reform is necessary.”
Since it seems that The White House agrees in principle with Citizens Against Government Waste — that earmarks are bad and that the process of earmarking needs to be eliminated — the question remains, do the two also agree in practice? Appropriations season is fast approaching. And it seems that taxpayers have ample reason to wonder just how many wasteful, pork-barrel earmarks are going to show up in next year’s review.
“Well, the Labor Department reported that the economy added 162,000 jobs last month, all of them bodyguards for Tiger Woods.” – Jay Leno
4
How Washington Works: “Earmarks” (via Politico)
1) Late at night a congress member throws his weight around…
2) by slipping a little “earmark” into…
3) a gigantic spending bill (that’s read by no one)…
“Life has been pretty tough for me ever since my husband walked out, leaving me to raise three kids on a waitress’ salary,” Bester said. “But hearing about CEC MidCorp’s financial troubles on CNN/fn really put my situation into perspective. I mean, there I was, obsessing over how I was going to find $300 to pay the rent, when there’s a company out there that lost more in three months than I’ll see in my entire lifetime. I knew I had to do something.”
2
“Some people aren’t sending their census forms because they’re angry at the government, which is dumb because the census is how we figure out who gets represented. So if you don’t send in your form, your state gets fewer congressmen. Which, come to think of it, maybe none of us should send in our forms because no congressmen seems like the perfect number, really.” – Jimmy Kimmel
1
“A new survey shows that the number of millionaires in America grew by 16% in 2009. Which would be good news if most of the new millionaires weren’t former billionaires.” — Seth Meyers on SNL’s Weekend Update
Taxpayers are stuck with the bill to archive the Grateful Dead’s memorabilia at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The Dead “wanted to go to a public institution because the whole idea of it being public and free was important to them.” As the Dead sing, “there’s a price for being free” – the university received a $615,000 federal grant for the project and is seeking additional funds.
49 – It’s as if government is dumping money into the ocean…
48 – Make sure to keep your travel receipts…all $100 million worth of ‘em.
Over six years the Defense Department spent $100 million dollars on unused airline tickets. Worse still, even though the unused tickets were refundable, the DOD never sought the refunds.
In 2009, $1.24 million was spent on two projects to control Brown Tree Snakes in Guam. Since 1996, $14.6 million has been appropriated for the interdiction of Brown Tree Snakes in Guam and Hawaii.
46 – Washington dances around the promise of fiscal responsibility
Jacob’s Pillow Dance, a dance festival in Massachusetts, received a $59,000 federal grant to digitally archive its library of dance photographs. (Suddenly, #50 above doesn’t sound so bad.)
The state of Washington sent $1 food stamp checks to 250,000 households in order to claim enough caseloads to qualify for $43 million in additional federal funds.
54 – If there’s one thing our ambassadors need in their mansions around the world, it’s new crystal stemware.
The State Department is spending $5.4 million to buy crystal stemware for American embassies from a Swedish manufacturer.
53 – Have you tried our new House (in the) Red?
Late last year $40,000 of federal money was spent to bolster the wine industry in South New Jersey.
52 – Dude, where’s my taxpayer-funded rental car?
At least 10 members of the House of Representatives spend over $1,000 a month of taxpayer money to lease cars. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver from Missouri is the biggest spender, doling out $2,900 a month for his vehicle that runs on used cooking oil.
51 – You probably don’t need a tour to find your way around Boydton
Congress appropriated $98,000 in 2008 to develop a walking tour of tiny Boydton, Virginia. The town is less than one square mile.
As the NCAA basketball tourney tips off (and the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland sweeps the box office), Bankrupting America kicks off its own March Madness. Starting today, we’ll bring you five examples every day through April 5 – the day of the NCAA finals – of the most absurd, wasteful, and downright mad government spending projects from recent years. Here’s 65 through 61 (warning: throwing your computer in anger will do nothing to curb government over-spending):
65 – The SEC plays musical chairs for $3.9 million
According to a report from the Inspector General of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the commission spent $3.9 million in 2007 and 2008 to rearrange desks at their Washington D.C. headquarters. “Taxpayers should be outraged, and we should be wholly mortified, to be wasting such an incredible amount of money and time on this,” said one SEC employee.
64 – Go outside and play with your $2 million wooden arrows! And don’t shoot your sister!
In October 2008, TARP provided the equivalent of $2 million in tax exemptions to makers of children’s wooden arrows. What’s next…wooden bullets?
63 – I’m so mad I could squish a $2 million grape!
The Center for Grape Genetics in Geneva, NY was given $2.192 million dollars in federal funds in 2009. New York’s wine and grape industries generate $6 billion in annual sales.
On the topic of squishing grapes, how could we resist:
62 – You might be a redneck if…you pay $350,000 to put your name on a NASCAR race car
The Federal Communications Commission paid $350,000 to sponsor a NASCAR driver, as part of its digital TV outreach. And what gets the most attention in a NASCAR race? The crashes: the FCC car crashed in two out of the three races.
61 – You know what we need? More astronauts…from Hawaii
