Stand up for the facts!

Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy.
We need your help.

More Info

I would like to contribute

$
Democratic congressional leadership
Democratic congressional leadership
stated on March 2, 2009 in statements to reporters.:

The omnibus bill has only $3.8 billion in earmarks.

False
By Bill Adair
March 2, 2009

Democrats too low with $3.8 billion earmark estimate for Omnibus

Stung by charges that the economic stimulus bill that passed last month was packed with pork, Democrats are claiming the big 2009 spending bill they’re now considering has a relatively small number of earmarks.

Many news outlets have cited Democratic estimates that there are only $3.8 billion in earmarks in the $410 billion bill, which is known as the Omnibus because it is the product of nine bills that failed to pass last fall. But Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent group that tracks federal spending, says the number is $7.7 billion.

Why the big difference?

The Democrats count the number differently.

Before we explain, here’s a little context. These numbers aren’t just a matter of arcane bookkeeping. They are significant because earmarks have become a key political issue. As a candidate, President Obama

promised to reduce earmarks

to the levels from 1994, the year that Republicans took control of Congress. So it’s important to measure them accurately.

The Democrats’ $3.8 billion figure has been widely reported. We found it in

Congressional Quarterly

, the


New York Times

,

the

Associated Press

and


USA Today


, among others. Most stories attribute the number to the Democratic leadership in Congress, while

USA Today

specifically cited Kirstin Brost, a spokeswoman for the Democratic staff of the House Appropriations Committee.

Brost told us that she specified to reporters that the number was for “non-project-based” federal programs, such as water projects for dams, navigational improvements and beach renourishment. These programs have such a high percentage of earmarks that Democrats exclude them from their totals. Their reasoning is that if they promise to cut earmarks by a certain percentage, as they have in the past few years, these programs will be disproportionately cut.

But Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said they should be included in the definition of earmarks because the projects being excluded meet Congress’ own definitition — the funding is requested by lawmakers for specific projects that in most cases are in their districts or home states. (For more on the definition, see

this earlier PolitiFact item

on White House claims that there were no earmarks in the stimulus bill.)

“According to Congress, these are earmarks. So to say there are $3.8 billion in earmarks (in the Omnibus) is misleading at best,” Ellis said.

Ellis invoked a weight-loss analogy to explain what the Democrats are doing.

“It’s easier to make your weight loss goals if you don’t count your rear end,” he said.

Brost says she has been precise with reporters that she was referring to the “non-project-based” numbers. But judging from the number of times we found the number cited as the Democratic estimate for earmarks, her nuance was not caught by reporters or by Democrats who have cited the figure.

Either way, the number is not a fair account of the total earmarks. We find the Taxpayers for Common Sense estimate to be right and we find the statement False.

Our Sources

CQ Today, Democrats, GOP Trade Accusations Over Earmarks in Omnibus Legislation, Feb. 24, 2009

USA Today, Spending bill includes $3.2B in projects , Feb. 24, 2009

Associated Press, Obama will sign spending bill despite earmarks , March 2, 2009

Interviews: Steve Ellis, Taxpayers for Common Sense; Kirstin Brost, House Appropriations Committee; March 2, 2009

 

Browse the Truth-O-Meter

More by Bill Adair
John Kitzhaber
stated on July 18, 2014 a campaign debate
Oregon "is the most trade-dependent state in the nation"
False
Donald Rumsfeld
stated on February 17, 2013 an op-ed in the "Washington Post"
Says wrestling was a favorite sport of Abraham Lincoln.
True
Rick Perry
stated on January 8, 2012 a Republican debate in New Hampshire.
Says President Barack Obama "is a socialist."
Pants on Fire!
C.W. Bill Young
stated on February 20, 2010 a speech to Pinellas County Republicans.
The Democratic health care plan is a "government takeover of our health programs."
Pants on Fire!
Barack Obama
stated on January 27, 2010 his State of the Union address
The "pay-as-you-go law ... was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s."
Half-True
Dick Cheney
stated on December 30, 2009 a statement to Politico.
President Obama "doesn't ... want to admit we're at war."
Pants on Fire!
Barack Obama
stated on September 20, 2009 an interview on Meet the Press
"Mathematically, the White Sox can still get in the playoffs."
True

Obama says White Sox can still make the playoffs

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
stated on January 7, 2026 a press briefing

stated on January 14, 2026 a statement

Social Media
stated on February 14, 2026 social media posts



stated on January 20, 2026 an op-ed


Donald Trump
stated on February 3, 2026 remarks in the Oval Office


Social Media
stated on February 8, 2026 social media posts





Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
stated on stated on November 17, 2025 in remarks at George Washington University:

Donald Trump
stated on February 2, 2026 an interview with Dan Bongino