Yesterday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly (79-21) to kill a proposed one year moratorium on earmarks.

The vote came as an amendment by Senator Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, to the Congressional budget resolution, which serves as a blueprint for overall spending for the next fiscal year.

Believe it or not, the Senate vote probably understates the Senate’s opposition to killing earmarks.  95% of Senators last year received earmarks. It’s easier to vote for a ban if you know that it’s ultimately going to lose.  It’s called having your cake and eating it too. You can be against earmarks and for them at the same time, pointing to a recorded vote against earmarks, while at the same time making requests for earmarks for your state.  

Much is being made of the fact that the Democratic presidential candidates voted for the moratorium, as did Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate.  However, this probably has more to do with taking the “earmarks” issue out of the presidential election than making a stand on principle, since both Obama and Clinton have requested and received earmarks during their time in the Senate.

Given the Senate vote, it seems less likely that the House will take up a moratorium, even though Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been reported to be considering one. Nevertheless, since the issue of earmarks has been so politicized, the odds are increasing that passage of the fiscal 2009 appropriations bills might be delayed until past the Presidential elections.