Taxpayers for Common Sense has published all of the disclosed earmarks in the 2009 omnibus spending bill. Even though Ray LaHood is out of Congress and now the Secretary of Transportation, the earmarks he requested last year remain… and there are a lot of them (an asterisk next to the amount indicates that LaHood was the sole requester of the funding):

It struck me as I read through this list that LaHood did not request one large earmark for the proposed downtown museum, but instead has comparatively little earmarks sprinkled throughout the omnibus bill — a few thousand here for exhibits, a few thousand there for the planetarium, etc. I would imagine that he did the same in previous years, thus spreading the earmarks out over time as well.

Citizens Against Government Waste named LaHood their “Porker of the Month” in January 2009. When giving their reasoning, they specifically pointed out LaHood’s earmarks for Lakeview:

His congressional rating with the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste went from a mediocre 68.8 percent during his freshman year to an abysmal 11 percent in his last year in Congress. In fiscal year 2008 alone, Rep. LaHood was responsible for securing 52 earmarks totaling $58.9 million, among them a $250,000 earmark for the Lakeview Museum Planetarium along with an additional $198,000 for the installation of green technology in the Planetarium at a time when the nation faced tens of billions in transportation maintenance backlogs [emphasis mine]. A January 14 Washington Post article noted that in 2008 he sent $9 million worth of earmarks to campaign contributors, and that he ranked in the top 10 percent of all members who obtained earmarks. Secretary LaHood expressed his derision for the taxpayers’ money when he told the Peoria Journal Star last year that the reason he “went to the Appropriations Committee, the reason other people go on the Appropriations Committee, is they know that it puts them in a position to know where the money is at, to know the people who are doling the money out and to be in the room when the money is being doled out.”

With all this federal money coming in, one wonders why the museum partners need a county sales tax, too.

But getting beyond that, the fact that LaHood has so many earmarks in the mammoth appropriations bill (and the fact that he’s no longer in Congress, and the fact that President Obama made a campaign promise to veto any legislation with earmarks) has the mainstream media taking notice. ABC News’ Senior Political Reporter Rick Klein noticed and listed several of the projects LaHood earmarked — including the Lakeview earmarks. And Fox News is all over it as well:

In LaHood’s case, the former Republican Illinois congressman wrote a March 19, 2008, letter asking Congress set aside funding to move the “Jacksonville bandstand” from one of the House office buildings to the National Museum of American History in Washington. LaHood also earmarked funds for police radio upgrades, agriculture research and equipment at a planetarium in Peoria, Ill. . . .

Congressional Scholar Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution cautions that some of these earmarks are merely extensions of existing programs. Mann noted that earmarks authored by former members of Congress may have merit. But Mann concedes that doing last year’s bill in February 2009 enables these former legislators to continue to wield power long after they’ve left office.

“It sounds bizarre that there are earmarks by members who are no longer in Congress,” Mann said. “There are historical legacies to actions taken by politicians.”

But Mann has questions for House appropriators who authored the bill and allowed the old spending requests to linger.

“Did they feel they were bound by these earmarks? Were they scrubbed by the staff?” he asked. . . .

Still, others wonder if it’s appropriate for the ghosts of former lawmakers to continue to have power.

One congressional aide who requested anonymity asked whether the lawmakers who replaced the old members would advocate the same earmarks.

“Their legislative priorities might be different. Those members were lobbied and decided to write that earmark. And now we’re going to leave it in even though (the former member) isn’t here any more?” the aide asked.

That’s a good question. Since Schock replaced LaHood in the House, one wonders if he would advocate the same earmarks. I’ll see if I can find out. One thing we do know, Schock voted for the omnibus bill in the House on February 25

CORRECTION: Schock actually voted against the omnibus bill. Steve Shearer explains:

You cite Roll Call # 85 which was on a resolution just prior to the vote on final passage of the Omnibus. Roll Call 85 was a resolution which prevented the scheduled pay raise for House members from taking effect. The resolution passed overwhelmingly. So Aaron Schock’s aye vote in Roll Call 85 was against the pay raise.

The final passage of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 was Roll Call 86, not 85. On that, (passage of the Omnibus spending bill) Aaron Schock voted NO. As opposed to Roll Call 85, Roll Call 86 was a much more divided vote between the yeas and nays.

Roll Call 85 just was a preceding resolution against implementation of the scheduled pay raise. The vote on final passage of the Omnibus Appropriations Act followed that vote.

Here’s the correct roll call for HR 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act 2009. My apologies for the error.