Ben Nelson (left), Mary Landrieu and Harry Reid differ with the president on earmarks. | AP Photos Obama earmark threat flusters Dems

President Barack Obama picked a fight Tuesday with his Senate Democratic colleagues over earmarks – and he’s well-positioned to win this battle against the parochial projects.

After Obama surprised lawmakers in his State of the Union address with a bold threat to veto all bills with earmarks, Democrats in the Senate grew visibly frustrated, denouncing the president’s call as a power grab that’ll have little-to-no impact on the federal budget deficit.


But the reality is that Democrats face a political climate that makes it virtually impossible to get any earmarks through this Congress if Obama and Republicans in Congress maintain their opposition. Abandoned by their president, Democrats in the Senate have essentially become boxed-in on the issue. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) says no appropriations bills with earmarks will pass the House, and Senate Republicans have also embraced a moratorium on the pet projects. That means House Republicans, Senate Republicans and the president would have to cave in if any earmarks are to become law this year.

Democrats aren’t happy about it, even if they know they have little chance of winning the fight.

“With Republican opposition and the president opposed to it, it’s very unlikely that it will happen,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the Senate’s biggest earmarkers. “But I think it’s very short-sighted policy, and it’s going to be very hurtful to Louisiana and a lot of states.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said that if the Senate doesn’t earmark money for their projects, they’re not going to allow the president to spend the money in areas that he prefers.

“If he’s going to veto something with earmarks in it; I’m not a fool, we’re not going to move forward on it,” Nelson said after the State of the Union speech. “Look, if everybody gives up earmarks, then I’m in favor of taking that 0.07 percent, taking it out of the budget, we’re not going to leave it for the president to spend, we’re not going to leave it for the bureaucracy to spend, we are going to take it out of the budget.”

Earlier in the day, the initial reaction from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was no kinder.

“I think this is an issue that any president would like to have, that takes power away from the legislative branch of government,” Reid told reporters after a caucus lunch. “I think it’s the wrong thing to do. I don’t think it’s helpful. It’s a lot of pretty talk, but it only gives the president more power. He’s got enough power already.”

Asked after the speech if he thought earmarks could move forward in this political climate, Reid would only say: “You heard what I said earlier today.”

The veto threat is a remarkable shift from just one year ago, when Obama used the State of the Union address to challenge Congress to make a minimal effort and publish all earmark requests on a website before voting on them.

But with resurgent Republicans now in control of the House with vows to cut spending, Obama lined himself up with their populist calls against earmarks, which had become demonized in the wake of unusual projects like the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska.

“And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it,” Obama said in his speech, prompting earmark foes like Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to rise to applause.

But most Senate Democrats sat on their hands, and Reid looked ahead stoically while Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) had a slight grin.

For years, lawmakers from both parties have fiercely guarded their constitutional prerogatives to set spending priorities through earmarks, saying that they need to respond to the demands of their constituents, whether it’s money for local universities, sewer projects or for military bases.

But with the combination of lobbying scandals involving earmarks, voters’ frustration with the backroom dealmaking of Washington, and the sky-high national debt, the practice has gone out of favor with many on Capitol Hill. After Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reversed course last November and backed a two-year earmark moratorium favored by his House GOP colleagues, Democrats in the Senate insisted that they were still going to move forward with funding their projects.

Now it seems increasingly unlikely.

Asked after the speech whether Democrats could continue to seek earmarks, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer said, “That’s something I guess we’ll have to look at, I don’t know.”

Washington Sen. Patty Murray, who ranks no. 4 in Senate Democratic leadership and ran her reelection campaign last year on her ability to bring home federal dollars, said she wouldn’t stop fighting for projects, regardless of what the president said.

“I came here to represent my constituents and to fight hard for them, and that’s what I’ll do,” she said.

But asked if that meant Democrats would continue earmarking, Murray said: “I think we’re all looking at how we’re going to look forward with our appropriations bills this year. And we haven’t made any decisions. It’s a tough year, there are cuts out there, and we haven’t made any decisions yet.”

Even on down to the more junior Democrats, the response to the earmark threat was almost universally negative.

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) warned that earmarks would simply move behind closed doors, where federal agency officials would get lobbied by members of Congress to fund initiatives back home.

“Those aren’t very transparent.”