Skip to content

McCain, who has made fighting pork the centerpiece of his campaign, votes for pork

Yesterday, McCain voted for a bill containing hundreds of millions in earmarks (better known as pork barrel spending). Today, he suggested that Dubya should veto that bill — the same bill on which he voted yes. The bottom line — when the chips are down, McCain’s promises to change Washington by eliminating pork spending appears to be just empty words.

Now, some of you might want to point out that Obama also voted for the same bill, but it is McCain who made his fight against pork spending the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. McCain says that as president he would veto every bill that contains pork, no matter how important the bill may be. If he would veto a bill, why would he vote for it?

Personally, I’d like to see an end to earmark spending, but mainly for transparency and accountability reasons. I don’t think it would save much money to eliminate earmarks, because they are such a small part of our federal budget, and because they would likely be funded in some other way. But I would like earmark spending to be on the public record, so that everyone knows who asked for every project. I would also like Congress to change their rules so that earmark spending could not be added on to unrelated bills.



  1. TT wrote:

    Hey, one thing I do not understand is the great opposition to earmarks. I do understand that there is a need for you in the US to look at what you use these earmarks for, but I think it was said by one member in the House that if you eliminate earmarks you give the president all the power over what the national budget is used for. The question is then whether that is better?

    Sunday, October 5, 2008 at 4:33 am | Permalink
  2. Iron Knee wrote:

    Exactly! What is needed is transparency and accountability. The problem is that Congress-critters can do earmarks without putting their name on them.

    Sunday, October 5, 2008 at 11:54 am | Permalink