Evan Bayh: Fox Contributor

Former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh made his decision not to run for the Senate again so he could take a cushy job as a Washington lobbyist. Now he's gone to the dark side.

Bayh will be a commentator and political analyst across all of Fox News’ platforms. He was a Senator from 1999 to 2011, where he became one of the more prominent conservative Democrats in the chamber.

Et tu, Evan?

Earmark Hypocrites

There's something to be said for John McCain railing against earmarks. And he has every right to complain about wasteful spending tacked on to a budget that would bring monies home to certain districts. After all, McCain had not attached a single earmark to the bill, whether as a solo project or in conjunction with other Senators.

But what about some of the others that have taken the opportunity to take the stage, have the vapors and shake their fists in a rage over the outrageous "pork"?

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) “...At a time when so many American families are tightening their belts to make ends meet, Congress should be as equally committed to living within its means."

Senator Bayh had $1,118,000 worth of earmarks in the bill.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): "The bill costs far too much for a government that should be watching every dime."

Senator McConnell had $51,186,000 worth of earmarks in the bill.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R): "Each and every time, whether a Republican or Democratic initiative, I have refused to go along with big government spending or big government solutions."

Senator Inhofe had $53,133,500 worth of earmarks in the bill.

Of the 35 Senators that voted against the bill, 28 of them had solo earmarks included in the bill. Of those 28 Senators, 27 were so-called "fiscally conservative" Republicans and only one was a Democrat.

Here's the list:

Barrasso (4 earmarks, $2.7 million)
Bayh (4 earmarks, $1.2 million) -Democrat
Bennett (23 earmarks, $18 million)
Brownback (21 earmaks, $12 million)
Bunning (5 earmarks, $735,000)
Burr (3 earmarks, $1.3 million)
Chambliss (7 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Collins (1 earmark, $380,000)
Corker (1 earmark, $760,000)
Cornyn (5 earmarks, $2.5 million)
Crapo (1 earmark, $100,000)
Enzi (5 earmarks, $1.7 million)
Graham (14 earmarks, $9.5 million)
Grassley (8 earmarks, $350,000)
Gregg (19 earmarks, $10 million)
Hatch (7 earmarks, $700,000)
Hutchison (35 earmarks, $9.9 million)
Inhofe (34 earmarks, $53 million)
Isakson (2 earmarks, $1.4 million)
Kyl (3 earmarks, $5 million)
Lugar (10 earmarks, $3.3 million)
Martinez (8 earmarks, $18.8 million)
McConnell (36 earmarks, $51 million)
Roberts (11 earmarks, $2.2 million)
Sessions (12 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Thune (6 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Vitter (16 earmarks, $4 million)
Voinovich (6 earmarks, $13.5 million)

Total: $234 million. This is only for solo earmarks. This doesn't include co-sponsored earmarks that account for about $7.7 billion in spending.

But here's the thing: earmarks aren't necessarily a bad thing. You need that bridge repaired in your district? Want to add speed bumps by the grade school? Does the park that has fallen into disrepair need an overhaul to detract undesirables from loitering and provide a much needed playground in the area? All those are worthwhile items and earmarks can provide federal funding for certain needs that can't be afforded by local government revenues.

So why flip out over the earmarks and call them pork and wasteful spending? Well, how else to pose as a fiscal conservative and have soundbites ready for your next campaign commercial? How else are you suppose to show your Republican outrage at the way Washington works, wag your finger at President Obama and accuse him of not keeping campaign promises?

Speaking of campaign promises, let's get back to Senator McCain. Unless you live in a cave, you've probably seen the 15 second loop of McCain on the Senate floor waving his freak arms and shouting, "So much for the promise of change, Mr. President. So much for the promise of change" and all too stiffly, as if reading stage direction, slamming the bill with his hand. Well, like I said, McCain can argue against earmarks because he hasn't signed on for any, even though he can let other politicians in his state do the dirty work to the tune of $54.6 million in earmarks for Arizona.

But let's not confuse who made what promise. It was Senator McCain, while running for President who said he'd "make famous" the procurers of earmarks while waving his magic Sharpie™.



That was your promise, Senator McCain, not President Obama's. Besides the fact that your outrage at the earmarks this year account for less than 2% of the total bill. Are you saying that we can balance the budget with a 2% cut? I think I'll leave the economics to the professionals instead of listening to Mr. The Fundamentals Of The Economy Are Still Strong.

President Obama promised transparent earmark reform and to scale back earmark spending to pre-1994 levels, when the Republican Party took over control of Congress. That year, Congress spent $7.8 billion on earmarks. The new $410 billion Omnibus bill? $7.7 billion in earmarks. Mission accomplished, if you will. Next year we plan to see the remainder of his promise to make all earmarks transparent and accessible.

Is Lieberman In Or Out?

Today is the day that the Senate votes by secret ballot to determine the fate of Holy Joe Lieberman and his Democratic Committtee Chairmanships.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "Every senator will have to vote the way he or she believes they should. I am one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did. I never ask people, well you must vote for this person or that person. Everybody has to make up their mind. But I felt that some of his attacks that he was involved in against Senator Obama -- whom I did support... I was one of the very first in the Congress to support him -- I thought they went way beyond the pale. I thought they were not fair, I thought that they were not legitimate. I thought that they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Senator Obama. I would feel that had I done something similar that I would not be chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress."

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): "As a chairman of one of our significant committees in the Senate, not just going off and supporting a presidential candidate of the other side but also criticizing the candidate on our side, and also involving himself in a couple of senate races on the other side. The question is, is that acceptable? The answer is no."

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ): "He was on the wrong side of the rope line. It is a decision that is hard to comprehend."

Howard Fineman: "Interestingly, people like Dick Durbin who is the first Democrat in the Senate -- the first Senator, and from Illinois, to support Barack Obama -- is really loaded for bear about Lieberman, he wants to kick Lieberman off that Chairmanship. Chuck Schumer, the head of the Campaign Committee likewise."

It's time to put up or shut up. I've been disappointed so often by the Democratic Party's bluster but lack of action that I'm really not expecting anything different this time. The 60 vote filibuster proof majority is a red herring - Lieberman has shown his colors and I tend to believe that he will lean toward the right side of the issues, and by "right" I don't mean "correct." He'll keep his chairmanships and continue to piss off the Democrats in the Senate and everyone else that wanted him gone.

But I do hope Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) is right: "...if he does retain his chairmanship, we still exert oversight over him and control over him. He doesn't have the ability to just do whatever he wants. The caucus still has the right to remove him from that position at any time if he starts going off on some kind of tangent.
So I simply think it maximizes the chances of getting progressive policies a better outcome if we have a Joe Lieberman, who is a little reticent, who apologizes for the things that he said that were way over the line, and instead is trying to do the right thing, instead of an embittered Joe Lieberman or a Republican replacement who will not be with us any of the time.
...You've got to remember, we have the right to change chairmen at any time during the session, and you know, we would expect him to conduct himself in that capacity, as someone who was supportive of the administration..."

Perhaps for fear of actually losing his position in the caucus, Lieberman will play nice, in which case keeping him on with the threat of throwing him to the curb if he gets out of line may work in the Democrats' favor. What's that saying? Keep your friends close and your meshugenahs closer.