McCain decides to change the meaning of the word ‘earmark’

[one...two...tree 2,762]

John McCain has an earmark problem. I don't mean a problem with earmarks; I mean an earmark problem. It includes confusion over what an earmark is, how much they cost, and whether he actually likes them or not.

To briefly recap, McCain, presenting hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts this week, said the cuts wouldn't necessarily worsen the deficit. The key, his campaign said, is McCain's commitment to cutting spending by eliminating congressional earmarks. Got it.

Except, as Kevin Drum explained very well yesterday, McCain and his campaign had a problem: "The two most serious studies of the subject suggest that total spending on earmarks is less than $20 billion — and McCain didn't think that was impressive enough. He needed a bigger number in order to buck up his bona fides as an anti-spending crusader. So he turned to an old CRS report that pegged the earmark number at $52 billion."

Problem solved, right? Wrong. ThinkProgress found that if we use the CRS report as a guide to what constitutes an earmark, and accept McCain's vow to reject all earmarks as president, that means McCain necessarily opposes aid to Israel, funding for military housing, money for drug eradication in Colombia, and humanitarian aid to Haiti, among other things.

The problem, of course, is that McCain is stuck in a trap of his own making. He can claim to cut $52 billion from the budget by eliminating earmarks, but then he ends up opposing funding that he actually supports. He can accept the actual figures for earmarks (about $18.2 billion), but then he'd have to concede that he isn't anywhere close to financing his lavish tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

Yesterday, McCain solved one of his problems by changing the definition of "earmark" back to the original meaning.

As ThinkProgress has previously noted, Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) campaign promise to "veto every bill that has a pork-barrel project on it" if elected president would result in $65 billion of cuts to programs, including U.S. funding assistance to Israel and funding for military housing. Now, McCain's top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, says that McCain is changing the definition of earmarks. Under the new definition, "there are between $16 billion and $18 billion" of earmarks in the current budget. Holtz-Eakin "declined to say whether McCain would ever begin to name programs he'll cut."

And this, of course, leaves us with McCain's other problem.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

His proposed tax cuts have been calculated to cost 6-7 trillion dollars over the next decade - that's 600 - 700 billion a year. Either way he defines earmarks, it's quite obviously plenty shy of meeting his spending cut needs. So let's see where he will dig up the remaining 530 - 680 billion annually.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

His proposed tax cuts have been calculated to cost 6-7 trillion dollars over the next decade - that's 600 - 700 billion a year. Either way he defines earmarks, it's quite obviously plenty shy of meeting his spending cut needs. So let's see where he will dig up the remaining 530 - 680 billion annually.

No kidding. McCain really meant it when he said he doesn't know much about economics...no wonder he praises Bush's economic policies...to him it's all rocket science.

[SnowyTater 0]

Is anybody seriously considering voting for him? I'm fine with Republicans, I just can't get past the fact...he's so old...he's totally gonna have a heart attack in office

plz dun maek mcain nxt prezzy kthxbai

[George W. Bush 6]

*cough* I'm still here.

Edited April 20, 2008 by George W. Bush

[Mags 112]

*cough* I'm still here.

Welcome, Mr Bush, to VJ. What a pleasure it is to have you on board!

[Ursa Tripudio 2]

I thought an earmark is what happens when you scratch your head with a Magic-Marker in your hand.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

*cough* I'm still here.

*cough* barely...