Politics

Santorum Defends His Use of Earmarks as a Member of Congress

Santorum Defends His Use of Earmarks in Congress

On Thursday, Romney supporter and 2008 Republican candidate for president Sen. John McCain berated surging 2012 Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum for his practice of earmarking federal funds back to Pennsylvania during his 16 year career in Congress. The Wall Street Journal reprots that Sen. McCain has long crusaded against earmarks, and said “I believe that earmarking is a gateway drug to corruption.

“Senator Santorum supported it and engaged in it as much as he possibly could.”

Sen. McCain criticized Santorum on the issue once again Friday while stumping for Mitt Romney in South Carolina: ”Sen. Santorum and I have a strong disagreement, a strong disagreement that he believes that earmark and pork-barrel projects were good for America.”

As his support for earmarks has been brought to attention in recent days, not only by Sen. McCain but also by the Club for Growth and National Review, the former Pennsylvania Senator has come out unapologetic on the issue.

CBS News reports that at a town hall in Dublin, New Hampshire Friday, Santorum defended his past use of the practice:

“The idea that earmarks–that because someone earmarks, that they’re an irresponsible spender is just absurd. The big problem in the federal government with spending is not earmarks, it’s entitlements,” Santorum said. “The people of Pennsylvania elected me to represent the interests of Pennsylvania.”

Santorum deflected criticism back at Sen.McCain for his lack of leadership on entitlement reform.

“Candidly, this is John McCain trying to put his imprimatur on the Republican conservative movement,” Santorum said . “John McCain very rarely supported entitlement reform. He came from Arizona – [an] older state — and ran to the hills when it came to anything having to do with senior benefits.”

Santorum’s open support of his use of earmarks is not new. The Club for Growth notes that in 2006, a Santorum campaign document entitled “50 things you may not know about Rick Santorum” praised the fact that he “helped secure $100 million in funding to build America’s first ever coal to ultra-clean fuel plant,” and brags about the fact that he “successfully fought to protect billions of dollars in transportation funds for Pennsylvania.”

During a 2009 panel discussion on FOX News Channel’s Hannity, Santorum continued to defend his use of earmarking.

“I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks,” said Santorum. “In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

Do you think Santorum’s position on this issue is a liability for his presidential campaign, or even disqualifies him from representing the Republican Party whose congressional leadership has been outspoken in opposition to the practice?

Comments (86)

  • MOTHERLAND
    Posted on January 8, 2012 at 4:46pm

    In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican — sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.” –Club for Growth

    Report Post »  
  • Joshua7
    Posted on January 8, 2012 at 10:36am

    I don’t agree with Santorum on this. To me, Ear Marks are like Welfare, they only promote dependency on the Federal Government. This is why the states are always so complacent when the Federal Government expands its powers, it’s how the state governments get half thier money.

    Report Post » Joshua7  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 3:42pm

      @Joshua7,

      “To me, Ear Marks are like Welfare, they only promote dependency on the Federal Government. This is why the states are always so complacent when the Federal Government expands its powers, it’s how the state governments get half thier money.”

      You misunderstand earmarks.

      Here, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are right about the definition and purpose of earmarks, except that Santorum mistakenly believes that funds should be appropriated SO THAT they can be spent on special projects.

      The first thing you need to understand about earmarks is that, Constitutionally, Congress has the responsibility over how government spends money, NOT the Executive Branch.

      Second, earmarks are amendments to Appropriations Bills that designate (as Ron Paul said) how the money will be spent.

      Third, all appropriated funds that are not earmarked (or “designated”, or assigned to a specific purpose) will be spent by the Executive Branch (unconstitutional!).

      So – and this is the point Ron Paul tries to make all the time – all money appropriated from the Treasury will be spent, whether any of it is earmarked or not. And because it is Congress’ duty to handle the spending, ALL of the money OUGHT TO BE earmarked.

      Where Paul and Rick differ is that Ron Paul often doesn’t see the need for funds to be appropriated in the first place, so he doesn’t vote for them. It’s his DUTY to earmark, though.

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 3:45pm

      Here is some more information on earmarks.

      See here.

      In Defense of Ron Paul’s Earmarks
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html

      And here.

      Earmarks Don’t Add Up
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul513.html

      Report Post »  
    • Chris
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 7:15pm

      A Doctors Labor: I don’t think that your interpretation is completely correct. The president sends a budget to Congress but it has no weight in law. the real budget for any federal agency is only what the Congress passes. The budget and the authorization bill defines what the agency in question does and how much that have to spend doing it. When an agency spends money it does so with the legal authorization of the congress. The budget does not specify in extreme detail how the money is to be spent, but it does give specific amounts for specific programs or purposes. Earmarks are typically unconnected to the purpose of the agency whose budget they are attached to but the money for them and the administration costs come out of the agency’s budget. I have seen a case where people have been laid off because an earmark to some big companies and universities dried up the money budgeted for them to do their jobs.

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 8:49pm

      @Chris,

      “The budget and the authorization bill defines what the agency in question does and how much that have to spend doing it. When an agency spends money it does so with the legal authorization of the congress.”

      The assumption, here, is that an Agency, under the color of lawfully being established, is the source of authority for funds to be appropriated, thereto. But this is backwards.

      The Constitution places the authority of appropriations in the hands of Congress. An Agency can be defunded.

      See here.

      US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

      “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

      It’s the appropriations, themselves, that must be made by law, rather than the case that an Agency is required to be funded.

      Report Post »  
    • Chris
      Posted on January 9, 2012 at 7:51am

      A doctor’s Labor:
      I never said that the agency has any ability to spend money or even be funded without Congressional authorization. In fact, the Antideficiency Act makes it illegal to spend appropriated money that hasn’t been appropriated. That is why they talk about a government shutdown when the congress can‘t or won’t pass a budget. Without a budget passed by the congress and signed by the president an agency has no legal authority to spend money. When that happens they send everybody home (with the exception of a few people that are needed for health and safety reasons or to provide a critical service) until a budget is passed.
      The president’s budget is really a wish list telling the congress what he wants the agency to do in the coming year. What the agency actually does is a function of the budget that the congress passes. That cuts both ways. If the administration wants to start a major (line item) program and congress doesn‘t budget for it it doesn’t get started. If the administration wants to stop a program and the congress continues to fund it it keeps going. That was what the flap over NASA’s Constellation program was about – that administration anted to cancel it but the congress said that the administration didn’t have the legal authority to stop the program because it was funded explicitly in the budget and authorization bills and only congress has the authority to change the budget.

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on January 9, 2012 at 10:54am

      @Chris,

      “I never said that the agency has any ability to spend money or even be funded without Congressional authorization.”

      Oh OK, I’m sorry.

      What is it that I’m missing?

      Report Post »  
  • tobywil2
    Posted on January 8, 2012 at 9:09am

    An earmark is a Congressperson’s way of rewarding political cronies and buying political support with your money!
    Earmarks highlight the major difference between capitalism and tyranny – the deployment of capital!
    In a capitalistic system, the entrepreneur invests capital with the objective of creating wealth and profit. The tyrant invests capital in pursuit of political advantage. Which do you think is more likely to create wealth and increase our standard of living?
    For an in-depth discussion of the evils of the earmarks, read Chapter 10, Earmarks, of the book “21st Century Common Sense” http://commonsense21c.com/

    Report Post » tobywil2  
  • SpinMD
    Posted on January 8, 2012 at 4:17am

    http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/01/05/will-rick-santorum-fill-the-role-of-winston-churchill/

    Honestly Glenn…. Winston Churchill?!?

    Report Post » SpinMD  
  • Daddymac10
    Posted on January 8, 2012 at 1:18am

    Shame on you Santorum for defending ear marks. Now that the ungrateful Tea Party voters threw Michele Bachmann, the founder of the Tea Party caucus, under the bus in Iowa, your the only candidate left I could hold my nose & support. But with baggage like this ..I’m beginning to change my mind about you

    Report Post » Daddymac10  
    • Mike4Freedom
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 2:05am

      Heres a little fuel to add to your fire of second guessing Santorum…

      Judge Napolitano Freedom Watch on Santorum:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU&feature=youtu.be

      Report Post »  
    • ivan67702000
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 7:17am

      Do we have constitution anymore? Ear marks are not the whole problem, if there is no money in these government programs and alike then there are no earmarks. Congress is responsible for the allocation of money to fund all this crap. Once the money gets to these accounts then it is earmarked this is congresses job,, people to earmark. Get rid of the programs. If you get rid of the earmarks your dick tater obama will earmark the money. Do any of you listen to ron paul, i guess stupid is the new cool. Sorry but true!
      I sometimes think, the people like being miss led, a bunch of sadomasochist

      Report Post »  
    • Dustoff
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 9:36am

      Yep, now when is Ron Paul going to stop defending his ear marks. He’s famed for his pork spending.
      Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      Report Post » Dustoff  
  • Dalton C
    Posted on January 8, 2012 at 1:11am

    For people who dont truly understand yet what Liberty is, please read:
    THE LAW, By Frederic Bastiat.
    You will REALLY learn what Life, Liberty, and Property are and mean.

    And for those mistaken Libertarians for Liberals or conservatives, please see
    the Nolan Chart.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

    Left wingers want government for economic issues and not personal issues.
    Right wingers want government for personal issues and not economic issues.
    Libertarians dont want government for personal or economic issues.
    Thats why it apeals to both sides of the political scale.

    Libertarians are not Left or Right.
    Libertarians are the only ones for TRUE LIBERTY.
    Both sides want to force people for what they think is right.
    This is called philanthropic tyranny.
    Yes, even Conservatives want government to force people to do what they think is right.
    Any force (unless to stop others from harming others) is against TRUE LIBERTY.

    Please watch this short video on the philosophy Of Liberty:
    http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

    Report Post »  
  • SwimmingUpStream
    Posted on January 8, 2012 at 1:02am

    RON PAUL has Educated the Masses and Fired up the GOP party line “Parots”. Even Michael Savage Now sounds like the Rest…(Hannity, Beck, Rush, Levin, etc.). I now have a new respect for MICHAEL LEWIS, MIKE CHURCH & ALEX JONES!!! I am tired of the “party-line” elites and it is time to break free. RON PAUL 2012!!!

    Report Post » SwimmingUpStream  
  • MOTHERLAND
    Posted on January 8, 2012 at 12:18am

    Santorum is nothing but a facist, blood thirsty warmonger posing as a Christian to pull the religious vote. He is as fake as they come and one of the most corrupt politicians ever. He has supported abortion, massive debt, unnecessary war, big government and threw his cap in the ring with Arlen Specter. You know who that is right? Do some research on this piece of trash and you‘ll see how Santorum swings more than a 70’s sex addict. He’ll start WW3 and put martial law into place faster than you can pull the hair trigger on your AR15 to stop him. I can’t stand Obama but Santorum makes him look like a boy scout.

    Report Post »  
  • Rayblue
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 10:54pm

    So long as he doesn’t defend the Karlmarks.

    It’s Saturday night. Give me a break.

    Report Post » Rayblue  
    • Patrick Henry II
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 11:30pm

      McCain, the ultimate big Government Porker of them all.. lol… Imagine the money McCain wasted….What was it that McCain called the Teaparty? hobbit teabaggers I believe it was. I would have that quote on Audio as McCain stands next to Romney endorsing him 10 times a day in NC if anyone is listening. Hello. McCain is a progressive dirtbag.

      Report Post » Patrick Henry II  
  • Lazier Than Thou
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 8:43pm

    Earmarks don’t matter, people. It‘s just a bugaboo the politicians can set people against so they don’t have to do any real cutting to the budget. If you cut ALL earmarks, you’re cutting out anywhere from $17 to $67 billion from the Federal Budget. Compare that to the size of the Federal Budget$(3.4 TRILLION in 2010) you’re talking about around 1-2% of the budget. Is that really going to change anything? No. It’s a drop in the bucket. Nothing. Less than nothing.

    It’s over hyped nonsense. Fine, let’s get rid of all earmarks, despite the fact that’s part of what Congress was made to do, but after that you’re still going to have to gut ALL other Federal programs to get the deficit in order.

    This is meaningless. Let the stupid rats have their earmarks. It makes almost no difference whatsoever.

    Report Post »  
    • GrannyATL
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:22pm

      Sorry, but earmarks is just another vote-buying maneuver. I like Santorum best of the remaining group, but sure wish we had someone like Colonel West to choose from.

      Report Post » GrannyATL  
    • Lazier Than Thou
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:56pm

      Alright, on the standpoint of corruption I can see how earmarks would be something to do away with. But from a fiscal perspective, I still don‘t think it’s a big deal.

      Report Post »  
  • ddg7
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 8:28pm

    Walk softly here. This is Glenn‘s friend Pat’s candidate. Anyone ever notice how Glenn often ask’s his posse, “Pat/Stu didn’t I just say….” blah, blah, blah. Like we wouldn’t believe him without someone backing up his statement. And like they’d say, ‘Oh Glenn, you’re so full of it. What the hell are you talking about. Why not just say, ‘You want a paycheck this week?’.

    Report Post »  
  • Arizona Luke
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:51pm

    I’m not a fan of earmarks but the real issue is entitlement reform.. and only Rick has the track record on that. and, I could be wrong, Santorum said he now takes the stance of DeMint (former earmarker) because the public opposes them.

    How refreshing, a candidate that understands who’s in charge and responds in kind.

    Report Post » Arizona Luke  
  • ddg7
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:42pm

    And I’ll bomb anyone who disagrees witth me!

    Report Post »  
    • ShyLow
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 8:18pm

      He won’t bomb in his own country…the people who disagree will be sent to a Sanitorium

      Report Post » ShyLow  
  • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:39pm

    Don’t see many Paul supporters in here discussing the topic at hand. I would think they would be here in droves showing some R-E-S-P-E-C-T to Santorum regarding earmarks.

    Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
  • Jenny Summers
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:35pm

    There is an EXCELLENT HIT PIECE on Santorum that I found…. it is the most comprehensive summary of Santorum’s hypocrisy on the internet… You can’t read this and not come away understanding just how corrupt Santorum was while in the Senate! Read it and SHARE IT with EVERYONE!

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article9242-the-real-dirt-on-slick-rick-santorum.html

    Excerpt from the article’s conclusion:

    It seems that Rick Santorum is truly a mix of values. There are those values of which he speaks – and then there are those of which he lives. Facts can be pesky things. Let’s just hope that the people of America care enough to learn them before casting another vote for Slick Rick, aka “Scrappy Doo” Santorum. His own behaviors prove him to be a corrupt, big-government puppet whose strings are pulled by the highest bidder. He has demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty and oppressive aggression when granted power.

    The truth speaks for itself. This is the corrupt politician that Ron Paul rightly accuses of Betrayal – “a serial hypocrite who can’t be trusted.”

    Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:41pm

      Hypocrite?

      http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/earmarks.php?cid=N00005906&cycle=2010

      Report Post »  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 8:06pm

      For 1992, the Racist newsletter earned **$940,000** and employed Paul’s family as well as Lew Rockwell (its vice-president] and occasional editor) and seven other workers. Murray Rothbard and other libertarians believed Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters for Paul; Rockwell later acknowledged involvement in writing subscription letters. When Paul was asked about the money Paul reply; “What money, I never seen it” but somehow it ended up in his account.
      As for earmarks, the congressman requested at least $157 million for fiscal year 2011, and another $398 million for fiscal year 2010, according to his congressional Web site. The provisions included $2.5 million for a “Historic Downtown Redevelopment Project” in Baytown, Texas; $8 million for replacing recreational fishing piers damaged during hurricanes; and $18 million for ship canal operations and maintenance.
      Cronies capitalism: Paul tried to help certain industries by co-sponsoring legislation that included tax credits. One bill from 2011 promised $5 billion in credits to the natural gas industry. Another measure from 2009 promoted fuel efficiency with a $2,000 deduction for individuals who swapped gas guzzlers for fuel-efficient cars. Do you Bots want me to go on and on? Because I can if you wish to spread your lies

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
  • CatB
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:32pm

    “Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 15 earmarks totalling $17,113,000 in fiscal year 2010 ranking 242nd out of 435 representatives. ”

    http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/earmarks.php?cid=N00005906&cycle=2010

    Report Post »  
  • ares338
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:14pm

    Pork and entitlements are wrong. It‘s amazing how these jerkoffs say they are against waste but listen to them defend it when it’s proven they supported it.

    Report Post » ares338  
    • READRIGHTHERE
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:23pm

      Even more evidence that we do not need to try to run a US senator again as a Republican nominee for President. Senators do not make good presidents. Never have and never will. Read my lips no new senators for President…

      Report Post »  
    • thegrassroots
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:27pm

      I wish Michele would have stuck with it a little longer …

      Even better than that, it would be great if Sarah would step back in …

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:40pm

      “Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 15 earmarks totalling $17,113,000 in fiscal year 2010 ranking 242nd out of 435 representatives. ”

      http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/earmarks.php?cid=N00005906&cycle=2010

      Report Post »  
    • thegrassroots
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:48pm

      If those accusations against Herman Cain are indeed false, as Herman says they are — he should have stared those accusers down and walked over them. Herman should not have buckled under false accusations.

      The only candidate able to truly represent America is Sarah and I hope she does a re-think … The thing is, the dum dems have already exhausted their Sarah mud supply. BHO and minions and lemmings have got nothing left where Sarah’s concerned and they are scared mindless of her. Sarah could beat BHO down into the ground with one hand and beat him at basketball with the other.

      I hope Sarah steps up …….

      God Bless America, In Jesus’ Name!

      Report Post »  
  • garyM
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:13pm

    Where Congressman and Senators are guilty on the earmarks is when they accept and pass a budget that contains enough money for earmarks. They all do it and the each to each congressman is a payment to their state in exchange for a vote to pass a budget that is larger than it should be. In congress, if the Speaker of the House gets 220 votes, many congressman will go ahead and vote yes to get their portion for the state they represent. The same with congress. Without ear marks, the president would be free to spend and waste money in payments to such things as Sylindra, Electric car companies that go belly up, etc! In fact a president could finance his next campaign with kickbacks doing such as Sylindra, I’ll give you 485 million and you return 230 million back to my campaign to an Obamapac under a different name! That’s the game some play! I think Santorum is a good man and not that kind of game player! Not Romney is that kind of guy!

    Report Post »  
  • COFemale
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:50pm

    There is nothing wrong with a politician trying to get money for his/her district. We voted to send them to be fiduciaries of our best interest. In doing so, we do expect that the monies he/she manages to allocate to our state or city is one that benefits all and not someones pet project or family member.

    The problem with earmarks is they are wrapped up in other bills. They are not stand-alone bills that must be voted on and seen for it true purpose. We already know both sides do this, so no one is immune or innocent. This is why it is important that not only do our representatives read the bills, but we do also. Until we hold their feet to the fire, this practice will continue.

    The best way to bring out what monies are getting allocated for what, is to pass a bill that earmarks can’t be wrapped up in other bills or legislation. They must be stand alone one subject only.

    The other alternative, as I believe has been done, but I am not sure if it has been finalized is to ban them all together.

    Report Post » COFemale  
    • oldguy49
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:05pm

      yep………….but when they make a deal to get there states a few million the rest of the bill has probably billions for the rest of the gov to throw away

      Report Post »  
    • jcannon98188
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:19pm

      Wasn’t everyone tearing into Ron Paul for doing the exact same thing earlier? Where is the Blaze slandering Rick Santorum about this? Same think with Santorum walking out of the interview. When he did it he “walked out” when Ron Paul did it he “stormed out” More blatant biased reporting from the Blaze?

      Report Post »  
    • MidWestMom
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 11:09am

      @COFemale
      Exactly.

      Report Post »  
  • hauschild
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:45pm

    C’mon man! Everybody‘s doin’ it?!?!

    Report Post »  
  • abbygirl1994
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:44pm

    Well, one down, one to go… we do not send you people to Congress, or the Senate, to make yourselves rich.. We send you there to keep our country running.. something you all have failed miserably at… I am sorry Glenn, but on Santorum you are going to have to prove Santorum didn’t all the things they are saying, he did.. because right now there is only one candidate I would vote for and that one is even iffy.. Anybody but Obama, how many have us said that… and now when the dirt is being dug up.. they are all corrupt.. except maybe the one.. he has some baggage.. but nothing I can’t live with so far. If these GOP candidates were really wanting to go on a witch hunt it should be Obama…. WHY aren’t any of them really delving into the dirt on him… Oh I suppose it will come.. but I am sick to death of GOP members bickering and bitterly accusing one another.. Ron Paul.. I would no more vote for than the man in the moon.. and only on one issue.. foreign policy.. if he would at least say he would fight for our allies if they would ask, then I would possibly vote for him, although I am concerned about some of the other stuff coming up on him.. Is this is going to be like 3 years ago.. not one single person worthy to vote for?? God help us! Prepare people… the Lord is nigh!

    Report Post » abbygirl1994  
    • mccracken
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:14pm

      adhd

      Report Post »  
    • garyM
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:17pm

      Looks like you finally seen through Glenn and his agenda!

      Report Post »  
    • ShyLow
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:34pm

      The right must have it’s king…you must know the taste of both butter and honey

      Report Post » ShyLow  
  • dnewton
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:44pm

    Santorum’s defense of earmarks shows a belief that if the money is directed from Washington, it will have a better outcome. Worst yet is shows a belief that if he picks the earmarks, the outcome will be better than if the local politicians pick local projects. This is a typical thought pattern of a progressive. Most of the earmarks were transportation earmarks. The highway trust fund was raided for the money to pay for the earmarks. But no money was spent in a state that would not have been spent anyway. Because transportation money was still supposedly spent on transportation, very few see the problem. The money was turned into political capital so that taxpayers could be thankful that their senator had “brought home the bacon.” This illusion that the senator had made something happen that would not have happened anyway was some times true. The only problem was that instead of spending on real transportation need, some of the money was spent in politically marginal or competitive districts by both parties and those projects provided even more marginal transportation benefit. one year, my county had a state spending on highways of about $131 per capita, but with earmarking, an adjacent county got over $3000 per capita. Earmarking causes these distortions because the motives are political, not safety nor motivated by increases in transportation efficiency. Earmarking can get a project started but the state must pay for all of the cost overruns or get another earmark next y

    Report Post »  
  • G.E.R
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:43pm

    Of course he has an excuse and a explaination for that. It‘s the same way he’s against abortion, but it was ok for his wife Karen to have a partial birth abortion back in 1996.

    Report Post »  
    • momrules
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:04pm

      Are you saying Santorums wife had a partial birth abortion? That she made an appointment with a doctor and deliberately murdered her child?
      Please show a link or web site with this buried information or admit that you are spreading lies.

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:34pm

      I agree .. link please! You can’t just make an accusation like that and run away!

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:44pm

      Also when Karen was in her 20′s and first dating Rick. She was living with an OBGYN who not only performed abortions. He open the very first abortion clinic in Pittsburgh.

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 8:37pm

      G.E.R. unless you have a link or proof ….. do you know what SLANDER is?

      http://www.ehow.com/facts_6324087_defamation-character-slander_.html

      Report Post »  
    • momrules
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:07pm

      CatB………Thanks for following up with the slander link. I get so tired of people like GER and their lies and smears.

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:18pm

      If you don’t believe it. Look it up. Then you can’t claim it to be false.

      Report Post »  
    • momrules
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:48pm

      GER…………Maybe you should do a little more research. Karen carried that baby as long as she could at the risk of her own life. At 19 weeks along she developed sepsis and had what is called a septic spontaneous abortion.
      A miscarriage is also a spontaneous abortion as opposed to a voluntary abortion which is willingly murdering your unborn child.
      The pro death abortion crowd jumped on the medical term abortion to defame the Santorums.

      Report Post »  
    • momrules
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:51pm

      One more thing GER……….research partial birth abortion all by yourself. It is a completely ball of wax. Now stop spreading these lies, you’ll feel better about yourself.

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 10:47pm

      Here’s the Santorums’ description of their second trimester abortion, written by Steve Goldstein, Philadelphia Inquirer, May 4, 1997

      Karen was in her 19th week of pregnancy. Husband and wife were in a suburban Virginia office for a routine sonogram when a radiologist told them that the fetus Karen was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die.

      After consulting with specialists, who offered several options including abortion, the Santorums decided on long-shot intrauterine surgery to correct an obstruction of the urinary tract called posterior urethral valve syndrome.

      A few days later, rare “bladder shunt” surgery was performed at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. The incision in the womb carried a high risk of infection.

      Two days later, at home in the Pittsburgh suburb of Verona, Karen Santorum became feverish. Her Philadelphia doctors instructed her to hurry to Pittsburgh’s Magee-Women’s Hospital, which has a unit specializing in high-risk pregnancies.

      After examining Karen, who was nearly incoherent with a 105-degree fever, a doctor at Magee led Santorum into the hallway outside her room and said that she had an intrauterine infection and some type of medical intervention was necessary. Unless the source of the infection, the fetus, was removed from Karen’s body, she would likely die.

      At minimum, the doctor said, Karen had to be given antibiotics intravenously or she might go into septic shock and die.

      The Santorums we

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 10:48pm

      Once they agreed to use antibiotics, they believed they were committing to delivery of the fetus, which they knew would most likely not survive outside the womb.

      “The doctors said they were talking about a matter of hours or a day or two before risking sepsis and both of them might die,” Santorum said. “Obviously, if it was a choice of whether both Karen and the child are going to die or just the child is going to die, I mean it’s a pretty easy call.”

      Shivering under heated blankets in Magee’s labor and delivery unit as her body tried to reject the source of the infection, Karen felt cramping from early labor.

      Santorum agreed to start his wife on intravenous antibiotics “to buy her some time,” he said.

      The antibiotics brought Karen’s fever down. The doctor suggested a drug to accelerate her labor.

      “The cramps were labor, and she was going to get into more active labor,” Santorum said. “Karen said, `We’re not inducing labor, that’s an abortion. No way. That isn’t going to happen. I don’t care what happens.’ ”

      As her fever subsided, Karen – a former neonatal intensive-care nurse – asked for something to stop the labor. Her doctors refused, Santorum recalled, citing malpractice concerns.

      Santorum said her labor proceeded without having to induce an abortion.

      Karen, a soft-spoken red-haired 37-year-old, said that “ultimately” she would have agreed to intervention for the sake of her other children.

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 11:32pm

      This hairsplitting over whether Karen Santorum had an abortion only serves to expose the ridiculousness of Rick Santorum’s extremism. In his view, it’s absolutely not okay for a woman to have doctors remove her life-threatening pregnancy for her, but it is okay for a woman to deliver a fetus well before viability so that the child can die slowly, in open air, as his Good Lord intended? Or is it just not okay for everyone who doesn‘t happen to be Rick Santorum’s wife?

      Report Post »  
    • momrules
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 6:01am

      GER………..finally did a little research did you and you still want to say that the Santorums were hypocrits. Shame on you.
      Now reseach partial birth abortion which you claimed she had.

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 8:29am

      Yes they are hypocrites! This is technically an abortion.

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 8:34am

      Santorum’s views are so extreme. He’s against abortion if there were no hope of the fetus surviving to full term, or if the woman carrying the fetus risked death doing so. So in his hypocratic world this would qualifiy as infanticide

      Report Post »  
    • momrules
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 8:43am

      You must be a Ron Paul supporter. You want to hate Rick Santorum so even facts won’t change your mind.
      I through with you.”

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 9:31am

      You must be one of those people who believe in that self serving, man made BS story that all life is sacred. Living people have a strong interest in promoting that idea and that somehow life is sacred. But only living people care about it. The whole thing grows out of a completely biased point of view and you get to walk around and feel noble about yourself. At best the sanctity of life is a selective thing. You get to choose which form of life you feel is sacred, and you get to kill the rest.You don’t see any of these anti-abortion women volunteering to have any fetuses transplanted into their uteruses, do you? No, You don’t see them adopting a whole lot of crack babies, do you? You’ll do anything you can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor you just might have to kill it? You‘re as much a hypocrite as the Santorums and you believe a woman’s primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

      Report Post »  
  • momrules
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:20pm

    All of them use earmarks to get some taxpayer money back in their state. To single out Santorum is hypocisy at it’s worst.
    I despise John McCain and the fact that he supports Romney just makes me dislike Romney even more.

    Report Post »  
    • TRONINTHEMORNING
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:24pm

      A big AMEN to that! The McCains are political idiots.

      Report Post »  
    • Stuck_in_CA
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:30pm

      Right-o! These pols need to EXPLAIN what earmarks are! If Congress doesn’t allocate the money, the White House will spend it where THEY want to.

      Report Post » Stuck_in_CA  
    • silentwatcher
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:47pm

      Trolls,,,,all of them. Our system is so corrupt and broken it cannot be repaired without literally firing everyone and going BACK TO THE BASICS. I fear the majority of people have lost faith in the system and are now just going with the flow.

      Report Post »  
    • dissentnow
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:58pm

      Most of the people who complain about earmarks couldn’t give a correct working definition of the word earmark to save their lives.

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:23pm

      I agree mom .. unless and until they change the way the game is played .. (stop sending so much money to Washington and keep it local) his job WAS to get that money back to his state. Sorry but that is the way the game is played … better that they get it back to We the People than to leave it in Washington where we KNOW it will be wasted.

      Report Post »  
    • justangry
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:24pm

      Well said everyone!

      Report Post » justangry  
    • nowhereman
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 11:45pm

      One Senator‘s pork is another Senator’s.bacon.

      Report Post » nowhereman  
  • TRONINTHEMORNING
    Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:12pm

    Least of my concerns right now; earmarks. Good grief, who can beat Obama? That’s all we need to focus on right now.

    Report Post »  
    • Got2bRoni
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:21pm

      Amen. The libs are eating this up. We must focus our efforts to expose obama for the liberal socialist that he is.

      Report Post » Got2bRoni  
    • Countrygirl1362
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 6:22pm

      Not only beat him, but is not worse than him and yes that is possible.

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:33pm

      I see NONE of the R’s who could possibly be WORSE than Obama! I don’t think there is a Marxist Socialist in the bunch.

      OMG .. Obama Must GO 2012!

      Report Post »  
    • justangry
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:45pm

      Thinks the different conservative factions could have come together with Sarah Palin?

      Report Post » justangry  
    • justangry
      Posted on January 7, 2012 at 7:55pm

      Meh, nicotine withdrawal! *Do you think the different…

      Report Post » justangry  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love