“Probably the biggest differences in the race in Maine may revolve around Senator Santorum and myself,” said Mitt Romney in an interview yesterday on Portland radio station, according to the transcript provided by his campaign. “He’s a strong defender of earmarks. I oppose earmarks. I want to absolutely end earmarks.”
That’s just one example of the many attacks on Santorum’s earmark record that Romney and his campaign have leveled in recent days. Looking to find a way to curtail Santorum’s traction, the campaign seems to have made “earmarks” for Santorum what “Freddie Mac” was for Newt Gingrich.
The Washington Post’s Jen Rubin talked to Santorum today about the charges:
Is he concerned that Mitt Romney’s barrage, most recently about earmarks, will knock Santorum off message? He laughs. “I’ll talk about it. Earmarks are an infinitesimal part of the budget.” He pointed out that in conjunction with the Salt Lake City Olympic games that Romney came to D.C. to seek $300 million in federal earmarks for the games. Santorum added, “You don’t see him go after me for increasing any appropriations account. I stood on the floor of the Senate with a spend-o-meter.” He says, “We have a great plan to cut $5 trillion. . . . and get to a balanced budget.”
Was Romney responsible for that much in earmarks? In The Real Romney, former Utah senator Bob Bennett is quoted as saying, “Most of the federal money was already in place before Mitt came on.” But a 2007 New York Times story paints a different account of what occurred:
[T]he federal government’s contributions, thanks to Mr. Romney, were also immense. By the time the Games were over, about $342 million in federal money to plan and stage the Winter Games had flowed into Utah, a record outlay for the Olympics and nearly $50 million more in constant dollars than was spent for the Atlanta Olympics, according to a report in 2001 by the Government Accountability Office.
And much of that money was from earmarks, which Mr. Romney now often calls politically motivated and wasteful. “These earmarks are embarrassing, and they’re embarrassing for my party as well as the other party,” he said in Marshalltown, Iowa, during a recent campaign swing.
But in the three years leading up to the Games, taxpayers ended up paying for a lot of things that had little to do with downhill racing or the perfect triple Lutz, including $33,000 for an Olympic horse adoption program and $55,000 for the Department of Justice to assess and resolve racial tension in Salt Lake City. More than half of the federal money was spent on security, but the federal government also footed the bill for shuttle buses, drug testing, park-and-ride lots and upgrades to the lighting at Salt Lake City International Airport.
Mr. Romney did reject some spending requests, annoying local politicians. But he also got behind some huge projects that he admitted at the time and in his book were not “must haves” for the Olympics, especially a light-rail system in Salt Lake City that some politicians were keen on having.
The quote from Sen. Bennett and the NYT article are not contradictory. Perhaps if some actually tallied the spending under Romney's watch, then there could be an interesting discussion, but this article certainly does nothing for that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid I miss something? I didn't see how Bennet's claim that the earmarks were in place before Romney came on board was refuted in the link you provided. I hope you clear this up, because it seems to me to be a very unfair charge if it is not true.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomeone help me out.
Are "earmarks" the same thing as plain old "pork"? The larding up of bills with allocations hither and yon that are unrelated to the bill?
Because I was under the impression that earmarks were just the way congress pinpointed where the allocated money actually went.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoth, but it isn't the only way congress pinpoints where money is spent, most of the money in a bill is directed in the bill itself, not in the earmarks. The earmarks are unrelated, usually, boondoggles that make it easier to pass by adding some spending on the Congress Critter can brag about back home, like adding a Bike Trail for his district to a Defense Spending bill.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEarmarks are basically how Congress trades benefits to a state to win votes on issues. It's how those who get elected can return the favor to both constituents and donors.
It's strange to think that because one is against earmarks one has to be against the Federal Government spending some money on the Olympics once every 20+ years when it makes it to America... that's just strange.
Remember this was also post-Sept. 11th when security was a huge concern.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly. A private citizen charged with running the first post-911 olympic games asking the feds for funds is hardly the same thing as a U.S. senator making frequent and regular use of the earmark system. And, Romney had quite a mess to clean up with those winter games. Romney absolutely saved those games under very difficult post-911 circumstances. I'm not sure Santorum really wants to remind everyone of the job Romney did with those winter games. It's a very bright spot on Mitt's resume. Weak accusation by Santorum, and Romney is absolutely correct to point out one of Santorum's big weak spots (not just earmarks, but big spending/big government in general).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse