Vitter Stands By His $249 Million In Earmarks While Complaining That The Omnibus Bill Is ‘Bloated’
Vitter Stands By His $249 Million In Earmarks While Complaining That The Omnibus Bill Is ‘Bloated’
Republicans like Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), have been attacking the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, claiming that it has too much spending and too many earmarks. One of the loudest voices calling for the bill’s defeat has been Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), despite his earmarks worth $249 million for 142 projects.
In an interview on Laura Ingraham’s radio show today, Vitter defended himself against charges that his position is hypocritical. “I don’t think it’s wrong to advocate for specific priorities in your state if it doesn’t change your opinion about an overall bill, which I think in this case is way too bloated,” said Vitter.
Pressed by Ingraham about whether it was “worth it to put these earmarks in,” Vitter said that “the important bottom line” was that he would vote against “a bloated bill, $410 billion”:
VITTER: Laura, I understand your argument. I think the important bottom line is when the vote comes, does David Vitter or Murkowski or Bond or anyone else vote for a bloated bill, $410 billion in this case. I can tell you what my answer is going to be. Ever since I’ve known the size and scope of this bill, I’ve said that’s way out of line. It’s 8 percent increase in these areas of the federal government, which is the most since Jimmy Carter.
Listen here:
Vitter continually said that the bill is too “bloated,” but he never suggested that he would be willing to do his part to slim it down by cutting his own earmarks. Considering that the bill is expected to pass, Vitter appears ready to take credit for the earmarked projects after voting against the bill.
Vitter claimed that “ever since” he learned the bill’s price tag, he has said that it was “way out of line.” This claim, however, is questionable. The House passed the $410 billion omnibus on Feb. 25, but as recently as March 1st he was telling his constituents that he was undecided about how he would vote on it.
Transcript:
INGRAHAM: David Vitter is responsible for an earmark that involves termite research in Louisiana. And the senator from Louisiana, my friend, is with us now. Late. Did I say you were late senator?VITTER: Late? What am I 30 seconds late? I apologize.
[...]
INGRAHAM: What’s going on with this termite research? How essential is that to the future of the country?
VITTER: Well, it’s important in Louisiana. I don’t know if you know about termites, but in terms of this overall spending bill, I think that we need to look at the overall number. $410 billion, almost another half a trillion dollars and defeat the bill. And I’m working very actively to convince the few of my Republican colleagues who may be leaning the other way to say, “please don’t help pass this bill.” This would be in my opinion even worse than when three Republicans passed the stimulus because here we’re even going to get some Democratic votes against this omnibus bill, so we can’t have Republicans passing it.
INGRAHAM: That’s a lot of termites though, 6.6 million. I mean, that’s a lot. I’ve had termite problems, they are pesky, but at this point in the economy. Now, here’s my point to you, and I understand that some of these projects are more worthy than others and, but when we’re trying to argue against Democrats who are in this spend-o-rama mindset constantly, how do you have credibility on this senator, to the extent that you want it, when Republican after Republican, including yourself, is slotting these earmarks into these bills that apparently you’re going to vote against?
VITTER: Well, Laura, I’ll be honest with you. I think the test is what you think about the overall bill and if you think for or against. Now what you’re talking about is a big problem if it essentially buys your vote. If it essentially greases the skids to pass a bad bill and clearly in some cases it does that and clearly that’s what the growth of earmarks in the last 15 years in particular has been about. If it doesn’t do that, certainly not in my case, I don’t think it’s wrong to advocate for specific priorities in your state if it doesn’t change your opinion about an overall bill, which I think in this case is way too bloated. I mean it’s 8 percent increase in these parts of the federal budget, which is the highest increase since the Carter administration.
INGRAHAM: Yeah, I’m not trying to beat a dead termite here, but the point is that Republicans have a principled argument to make and while I guess I understand what you’re saying about this — and you have done more to illuminate the outrages in this bill than pretty much anyone out there other than McCain and a few others — I just think it’s not worth it. I don’t even think it’s worth it to put these earmarks in senator. I don’t think its worth it for what it does to your credibility on fiscal matters. I just think it gives an easy club to Emanuel and Axelrod and company to say, “oh you know, these Republicans, they’re good at saying, they’re good at blockading measures, but look, when push came to shove David Vitter and Murkowski and Cochran and Bond and all these Republicans had their little pet projects in there as well.” That’s what they’re going to say. You know that’s what they’re going to say.
VITTER: Laura, I understand your argument. I think the important bottom line is when the vote comes, does David Vitter or Murkowski or Bond or anyone else vote for a bloated bill, $410 billion in this case. I can tell you what my answer is going to be. Ever since I’ve known the size and scope of this bill, I’ve said that’s way out of line. It’s 8 percent increase in these areas of the federal government, which is the most since Jimmy Carter.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Huh?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Why Mr. Vitter, you could withdraw your earmarks and reduce that bloat by a quarter of a billion dollars! But that’s not how it works for you ‘pubs is it?
Is any of that money earmarked to help get you potty trained once and for all? Those diapers are costly!
PEACE
March 9th, 2009 at 4:22 pmSince when is 520 billion [not even including Iraq/Afghanistan] less than 410 billion??
Is Vitter using some kind of Orwellian math…
March 9th, 2009 at 4:22 pm$249 million for a diaper cleaning service? Did I read correctly? Vitters earmark is for a diaper cleaning service, which will come in handy as summer approaches. It gets hot and smelly in Vitters office after the spring thaw.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:25 pmIf anything’s bloated, it’s gotta be David’s diapers. We really gotta kill this diaper meme — it’s really like shooting fish in a barrel.
Must stop, must stop . . .
March 9th, 2009 at 4:26 pmDo the fine people at TP look for pictures of Vitter that make him look like he’s filling his pants? Or is that the only pictures we can get of this manchild?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pmWhoever selected that picture of Vitter for this post is a genius.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pmNot only are republicans hypocritical, they are stupid as can be.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:34 pmRepublican definition of earmark: Money for congressmen’s pet-projects, but not mine.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:34 pmCaption contest: Mmmm squishy
March 9th, 2009 at 4:34 pmVitter continually says that the bill is too “bloated,
– - Load up on the ActiVitter yogurt, Dave, and be sure those diapers are double-downed.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:36 pmAnother case of IOKIYAR.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:37 pmEarmarks are “bad,” unless they are republican earmarks — just ask Lindsay Graham.
kasinca Says:
——————————————————————————–
Not only are republicans hypocritical, they are stupid as can be.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:39 pmBut worst of all…. they think Americans are as stupid as they are.
Diapers David Vitters is a disgrace to Louisiana, The Senate and the USA.
Stormy Daniels is a competent challenger to defeat Diapers David, at least she is honest about who she sleeps with.
http://draftstormy.com/
March 9th, 2009 at 4:39 pmcaption contest:Hmmmmmm, no I am not a hypocrite.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:48 pmRepublican hypocracy was at an all time high on the talk shows this weekend. They know that the bill was negotiated in December under the former administration. Now Senators Shelby, Grahamm, McCain, and now Vitter all hate earmarks, except the ones for pet projects in their states. All this bluster from Republicans, including John McCain’s pounding on the podium scolding, “President Obama, this is not change we can believe in!” Yet, the top 3 most expensive, and 6 of the most expensive 10 earmarks were added by Republicans. Although added by McCain’s counterpart, some of that earmark money is going to the state of Arizona. It’s all part of the Repubican game; that’s all they’ve got left.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:48 pmCant take you serious when you go on Laura “Woody Woodpecker” Ingraham’s show and try to defend hiposcrisy to the queen of hipocrisy.
There are such things as good earmarks, yes its true. But dont come down on them when you have your uber share of them for your state and defend them as necessary. Yours may not be the only ones that are.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm“I don’t think it’s wrong to advocate for specific priorities in your state if it doesn’t change your opinion about an overall bill, which I think in this case is way too bloated,” said Vitter.
I see. David knows earmarks are bad. So, when he proposes massive earmarks he knows he is being a bad, bad boy.
Hey, you need something to talk about with your prostitute mistress.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm“I don’t think it’s wrong to advocate for specific priorities in your state if it doesn’t change your opinion about an overall bill, which I think in this case is way too bloated,” said Vitter
This sentence does NOT make any sense. Not even for Vitter!!
Do you think they hope no one will notice how non-sensical they sound? Kinda like an Ostrich?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:54 pmWhat? Vitter is going to vote against his own earmarks? I’m sooooooo confused!!!!
March 9th, 2009 at 4:55 pmkrystalviews Says:Not only are republicans hypocritical, they are stupid as can be.
kasinca Says: But worst of all…. they think Americans are as stupid as they are.
well you have to admit that between 1996 and 2004 there was some significant evidence to support their assumptions that the majority of Americans were even dumber than them (( adn of course the high and mighty of the GOP weren’t ‘dumb’ in their own estimation, they were clearer smarter than their electorate and smarter than Democrats and liberals too, because of their election victories).
But the trouble with conservatism is that it never accounts for change or the influence of experience and factors beyond its control (conservatism also is assumptive of control , ergo change is an anomaly).
But they are smart enough to know that change is a threat conservatism and thus the promotion of ignorance and the denial of change is key to their survival as a political (and fiscally profitable too).
March 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pmTry it again – used a baaaaaaaaaaaad word and went off to the “moderation” abyss
INGRAHAM:..but when we’re trying to argue against Democrats who are in this spend-o-rama mindset constantly, how do you have credibility on this senator…
Laura, you ignorant sl*t. Earmarks or no eearmarks, you are entirely blind to reality:
Neither you or any Republican has credibility on any spending bill criticism after the last 8 years of Chimp-o-rama and GOP led fiscal insanity and irresponsibility.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:58 pmIs any of that money earmarked to help get you potty trained once and for all? Those diapers are costly!
March 9th, 2009 at 4:58 pmWhen listening to conservatives or reading their rants, one must always keep in mind that they are not talking to thinking people…their target market are the bottom feeding, knuckle dragging, haters and troglodytes.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:07 pmSo, everyone else’s earmarks should be cut but not mine. But I will vote against the Bill that carries my earmarks that supposedly are for my state. Does diaper head Vitter hear himself ?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:07 pmINGRAHAM: “I don’t even think it’s worth it to put these earmarks in senator. I don’t think its worth it for what it does to your credibility on fiscal matters. I just think it gives an easy club to Emanuel and Axelrod”
Even INGRAHAM. a faithful GOP hack, can see the illogic in Vitter’s statements–or rather the weakness of his political argument. .
March 9th, 2009 at 5:08 pmoops, I missed a couple of useful words @ 22.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:10 pmMy apologies to all.
Go Stormy!
Realistically, she can gather 5% max in the GOP primary and some far(ther) right whackjob like tony perkins will be able to edge out Vitter.
Dems are getting that seat.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pmWhat’s the difference between an earmark and an additional economic stimulus tool? I see each of the ‘pet projects’ in this funding bill as more opportunities to put people back to work in the individual state the project is being run in. It seems though, that the Republicans want to brand these necessary instruments as ‘pork’ and ‘bloat’. If these projects were not included wouldn’t we just be increasing ‘welfare’? AND of course EVERYONE knows that the only acceptable welfare is CORPORATE welfare…
March 9th, 2009 at 5:29 pmI think there should be a better way to do this. We can all agree that many earmarks are necessary,even vital, for all kinds of projects, some of which look pretty stupid when you just read the heading, without reading the details. Perhaps allocating an amount of federal dollars to each state, based on their contribution and their needs,( think NOLA for example.)
March 9th, 2009 at 5:48 pmhow much of that stimulus does vitter have slated for his favorite “working girls”/pamper providers?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pmLindsay Graham said the same thing. It is like they all read from the same hypocritical paper. They want to criticize and to obstruct but they will take the money. Because politics aside they know who caused the depression and who is the only person who can stop it. So while damning Obama every day in every way, they know if they do not take the money they have no way to be re-elected. These Republicans have no desire to get a real job. They like being near the seat of power. They develop a huge rolodex and become greedy lobbyists when they finally leave office.
Since Vitter like most politicians is horribly two faced and fairly corrupt, you would think he would stick to prostitutes and keep his mouth shut. But he didn’t. Each politician thinks his earmarks are alright, but someone else’s is not.
From both parties, they love to point fingers. They have no real or substantive ideas to offer. So disruption is all they offer.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:07 pmIt is hilarious that Vitter sites Jimmy Carter. The president who followed Carter bloated the federal government and left a bigger debt while cementing a reputation as a small government advocate. That, of course, was Ronald Reagan, the hero of nonsense. The GOP has repeatedly been fiscally inept while in power.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:11 pmWhy in the world does anyone take anything seriously from someone who frequents Prostitutes, and as for the “Dave the Diaper Man” part, that’s just icky.
Vitter, take your particular type of family values and take a big poopy in them.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:15 pmCan we compare this amount to the amount we spent for the Iraq “War” (of course, that was Enron accounting off-the-books).
Or perhaps for the no oversight, not even any stipulations, funding for the banks ?
And could we ask how much of the package pays for things which really needed to be done and those which will pay a dividend in the future (infrastructure improvements, education, researh…..)
March 9th, 2009 at 6:25 pmDoes this buffoon and Boehner get their daily KoolAide infusions at the same time???
They must have just read the latest scores where Boehner (Boner) has 22 and Vitter has only 21 in the race to 50 in the “Stupidest Person in the World” contest…
March 9th, 2009 at 6:30 pmI wonder if he complained about the price while he was screwing the prostitute ? ?
I’ll bet not.
What a hypocrite !
March 9th, 2009 at 6:44 pmI don’t think earmarks per se are bad. Anonymous earmarks and earmarks that do not undergo peer review are bad. Peer review is necessary to ensure the projects involved are worthwhile. In order to hold their elected officials responsible the public must know precisely who introduced each and every earmark.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:59 pmDo you have to be a hypocrite and a stooge to be a RepubliCon?
March 9th, 2009 at 7:34 pmIt’s time to start spending this money on lowering poverty levels
The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:35 pm$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget
I’m waiting for the GOP to introduce legislation stating that anyone voting against this funding automatically loses all such funding for their districts, even if the overall bill passes.
Then again, that would require “logical consistency”, a trait completely absent from the Repubs DNA.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:48 pmHi atsegga
March 9th, 2009 at 7:58 pmHow come Clint or whatever the hell his name is never comes around?
And another thing how come he claims to have lived on a commercial fishing vessel in Dutch Harbor but never makes the claim that he actually worked on said vessel?
I’m somewhat amused by the false outrage of some members of the GOP regarding the earmarks in the Omnibus bill–slamming their fists down with one hand while accepting funds earmarked for their own constituencies with the other.
This reminds me of the scene in Casablanca where Captain Renault exclaims with false indignation for the sake of the Germans, “I’m shocked, shocked that gambling is taking place here.” And then a moment later, the croupier appears to give him his daily winnings.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:18 pmVITTER the HYPOCRITE! TP always has the best-worst pics of Vitter – LMMAO!
March 9th, 2009 at 10:58 pm.
T.P. Wrote:
Fixed It:
.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:39 am.
Photo Caption:
.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:42 amThere can be no filabuster in the Senate on this Budget Bill.
so I say, take out every earmark of every complaining Rush-lican that loud mouths against it but wants their money back to there state.
After all, some of those states have Rush-lican Governors that didn’t want that liberal socialist stimulus money.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:30 amMaybe Republicans are stuffing the bill with pork in order to deride the size of the bill?
March 10th, 2009 at 11:58 amavchavis Says:
VITTER the HYPOCRITE! TP always has the best-worst pics of Vitter – LMMAO!
Contradicting Obama’s language on the trail and his press secretary’s comments in the briefing room, there’s a $7.7 million earmark in the $410 billion spending bill with Barry’s name on it:
President Obama, who took a no-earmark pledge on the campaign trail, is listed as one of dozens of cosponsors of a $7.7 million set-aside in the fiscal 2009 omnibus spending bill (HR 1105) passed by the House on Wednesday.
The bill is an accumulation of leftovers from 2008 — spending measures that weren’t enacted before the 110th Congress expired. Lawmakers who wanted money for local projects in those bills were required to submit their requests many months ago, while Obama was still a senator. It’s moving through Congress now because a temporary extension of funds to run the government will run out after March 6.
Obama’s name jumps out on a list of many earmark cosponsors because he and his staff have been so emphatic about his no-earmark stance.
“Daily Standard”
March 10th, 2009 at 8:37 pmavchavis Says:
VITTER the HYPOCRITE! TP always has the best-worst pics of Vitter – LMMAO!
I guess we have to add Obies name to the “HYPOCRITE” list.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:40 pmKingCranky Says:
I’m waiting for the GOP to introduce legislation stating that anyone voting against this funding automatically loses all such funding for their districts, even if the overall bill passes.
Then again, that would require “logical consistency”, a trait completely absent from the Repubs DNA.
It would never pass. To many Liberals in the House and Senate. I’d favor it though. If it’s a worthy expenditure then it should be able to stand on it’s own in it’s own bill.
Not to worry though, Obie has pledged to veto any bill that has earmarks in it. Honestly, I heard it with my own ears more than once. “YUP”
March 10th, 2009 at 8:50 pm