Of the 35 U.S. senators who opposed the omnibus spending bill in the form of a “no” on the cloture vote — 28 of them had solo earmarks in the legislation.

In total, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, these 28 senators had a combined 307 solo earmarks totaling nearly $240 million.

Here’s the breakdown (check out how many of these people are republicans):

Barrasso (4 earmarks, $2.7 million)
Bayh (4 earmarks, $1.2 million)
Bennett (23 earmarks, $18 million)
Brownback (21 earmaks, $12 million)
Bunning (5 earmarks, $735,000)
Burr (3 earmarks, $1.3 million)
Chambliss (7 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Collins (1 earmark, $380,000)
Corker (1 earmark, $760,000)
Cornyn (5 earmarks, $2.5 million)
Crapo (1 earmark, $100,000)
Enzi (5 earmarks, $1.7 million)
Graham (14 earmarks, $9.5 million)
Grassley (8 earmarks, $350,000)
Gregg (19 earmarks, $10 million)
Hatch (7 earmarks, $700,000)
Hutchison (35 earmarks, $9.9 million)
Inhofe (34 earmarks, $53 million)
Isakson (2 earmarks, $1.4 million)
Kyl (3 earmarks, $5 million)
Lugar (10 earmarks, $3.3 million)
Martinez (8 earmarks, $18.8 million)
McConnell (36 earmarks, $51 million)
Roberts (11 earmarks, $2.2 million)
Sessions (12 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Thune (6 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Vitter (16 earmarks, $4 million)
Voinovich (6 earmarks, $13.5 million)

Earmarks comprise a mere drop of spit in the ocean of debt that the Bush Administration created and that the Obama Administration inherited. By necessity, the debt will now have to get worse before it can get better. There are far more important issues that need to be addressed with respect to impact on the economy.

McCain has become a one-trick pony with his obsession over earmarks. Fine–his choice. Obama has bigger challenges to consider in the near future, and the earmark issue will be addressed in a timely fashion.

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.

if no one was hiring them, there would be so few illegals it wouldn’t matter.

if Mr. Independent thinks it’s a problem, he should be going after the companies that employ illegals, not every single citizen of the USA.

So, what’s the problem?

Cheers,
RC

That “engagement” and “discussion” felt like pulling teeth or having them pulled. I’m not sure I want to try again.

McWars, isn’t it interesting that “LaRaza” translates as “the people”? I trust you were not slighted when I didn’t respond earlier – I really was trying to stay engaged with independent.

I have never heard of anyone saying that only Hispanics should have to show proof of citizenship. I have heard that everyone should show proof of citizenship and La Raza has opposed this.

I am for making it as close to impossible, as possible, for illegals to work in this country. Especially with unemployment at 8.1%.

What else do you want to know?

I do not need any “benefit of the doubt” from you and I have been sticking to the subject. You have tried to divert me from a straightforward, specific topic that we began by throwing other questions at me. You can choose which posters you respond to in the same way that I choose which of your topics to focus on. I was also addressed by other posters but gave you the courtesy of staying engaged only with you as we seemed to have start a worthwhile discussion. When you did respond to me, it was with throw away lines without solid substance and if you have such credibility on the topic, you should have had a ready and more complete answer. I was very patient before I became pejorative and believe me, I can be a lot harsher once I decide a poster is just trolling and not willing to engage in a real discussion.