Earmarks! We can't live without them!
 

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table DeMint Amdt. No. 3454 )
Vote Number: 50 Vote Date: March 16, 2010, 06:02 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion to Table Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3454 to S.Amdt. 3452 to H.R. 1586 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose: To establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
Vote Counts: YEAs 68
NAYs 29
Not Voting 3
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Not Voting
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burris (D-IL), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (D-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Not Voting
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
---------------------
"We love us some pork!"

Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Brown (R-MA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Kaufman (D-DE), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
LeMieux (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay

your purpose?

Showing which of our elected reps can't even go a year giving up pork.

McClatchy:

One-year freeze on earmarks fails in Senate, splits GOP

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly defeated a bid to freeze spending earmarks for a year.

Lawmakers voted 68-29 against an amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to impose a one-year moratorium on earmarks. Twenty-four fellow Republicans voted for DeMint's measure, while 15 GOP senators voted against it.

The vote came six days after House Democratic leaders banned earmarks to defense contractors and other private companies, limiting them to state or local governments and nonprofit groups.

DeMint and fellow conservative Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., engaged in a brief but fierce debate on the Senate floor before the vote.

Inhofe, otherwise a close ally of DeMint, said prohibiting lawmakers from directing money to their states would give more power to President Barack Obama and the executive agency heads he appoints.

"All you end up doing if you're successful is giving all this to Obama," Inhofe said.

DeMint retorted that Congress can use its oversight power to restrain executive spending.

"Folks, we have every power here by the way we appropriate to disallow the use of funds for certain things," DeMint said.

Four Democrats voted with DeMint to ban earmarks for a year: Sens. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Ted Kaufman of Delaware.

Before the vote, DeMint delivered a nearly 10-minute scold of his colleagues.

"The trust in our government is at an all-time low, and the earmarks that we send across the country are mostly with borrowed money," he said. "With all of our debt, the corruption, the waste, every American has a right to question what we're doing right now."

DeMint lambasted the economic-stimulus bill that Congress passed in February 2009, now projected to cost $862 billion, as "a candy store of earmarks," and he bitterly criticized special deals given to Louisiana and Nebraska in December to secure Senate passage of health care legislation.

"Americans now know that we buy votes with earmarks," DeMint said. "Isn't it time we just take a timeout for one year and see if we can reform the system?"

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/1...#ixzz0iSAo1Kry

I agree with DeMint.

Do you realize that the, "bitterly criticized special deals given to Louisiana and Nebraska in December to secure Senate passage of health care legislation," are being removed from the health reform bill, by the Democrats during the reconciliation process, this weekend, right?

And the inclusion of the above is why the House Dems want to go through the dance of combining and voting upon the Senate bill with the reconcilation package?

well, it would seem to me that you don't need the "scorched earth" reconciliation to get rid of the backroom deals!

Tell that to your United States Senators, who wouldn't vote for the Senate bill until they got their pork. The House won't let them have it.

Reconciliation is also adding into the Senate bill (which basically doesn't do much by itself) cost containments.

You think you can get 'your people' in line?

this is a whopping $48 billion package that must go down as the grandaddy of all earmarks.

Proposed by a gentleman named Lamar Mickens, president of the not-for-profit Quality Day Campus, the $48 billion earmark would funnel money into the inner cities to give money to the poor and thereby produce a much larger consumer class to buy the goods and services produced in this country.

Sickening

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1687936.html

Exhibit A is the "omnibus" spending bill Harry Reid is trying to push through the Senate. This monstrosity contains about 6,500 earmarks -- special provisions inserted on behalf of lobbyists to benefit special interests. The lobbyists get big fees, the interest groups get handouts and the politicians get rewarded with contributions from both.

It's a win-win-win for everyone -- except the taxpayers who finance this carousel of corruption.

We seem to have a pattern going! And it really stinks!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...V2YtrTaFqHowYM

Earmarks are destroying this country...not really but I have a flair for the DRAMATIC.

A Rick Flair sighting

Whoooo!

I AM ANGRY RAWR! DAMN MONEY GOING TO BLACK KIDS!! GRRR. I WANT MY WHITE AMERICA BACK!! AND FIRING SQUADS!!!

Spent trillions in Iraq but heaven forbid a politician ask for $48 billion to improve the lives of people in the inner cities.

F.uck those people, right? You're in the suburbs so f.uck 'em. They can't get to you.

If you're against wasteful spending then how could you not be going ballistic on a daily basis over these two wars we're in?

You could add up every god-damned earmark in the history of mankind and they wouldn't put a dent in what we've spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

F.ucking priorities. Get yours straight. The republican party doesn't give a f.uck about you. And that goes for the libs on here. The democratic party doesn't care about you.

I hate this sub-forum.

Double
:tro::tro:

Republicans and Democratic constituents fighting like it means something while getting raped and pillaged by those that represent you. Didn't this only used to happen in Hati and other third world countries.

I don't need or want care from them. I need them (both parties to stay the f.uck out of my life and wallet) Protecting the country should be their main focus.

I do believe there are enemies specifically muslim enemies who's everyday goal it is to wreak havoc on us. Hence killing them before being killed by them makes sense to me whatever that cost may be. But leaving the borders open and trying to welcome those who snuck in makes about as much sense as cooking dinner for someone while he robs your home.

How is borrowing money from China to fund two wars making us any safer?

How is the war in Iraq, in particular, making us safer?

If I'm not mistaken, we were attacked on our homeland. I don't know, maybe I'm just naive...but shouldn't we have focused on our homeland security instead of going overseas and chasing a few thousand terrorists around?

I'd like to know who feels safer now than they did in 2001.

Anyone besides del?

I thought that war was over?

Remember the 'Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country," speech? Or was that guy fibbing again?

Yeah that was bad but it will never top...














Keep on fighting the good fight, del!

Inouye (D-HI), Yea

:confused:

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, unveiled on Tuesday a $1.108 trillion omnibus spending package loaded with earmarks.

I am confused...