Pork puzzler
In Sunday's Washington Post, Michael Grunwald wrote a thoughtful piece on the roots and routine of pork, suggesting that earmarks aren't necessarily the problem, wasteful spending is:
Politicians have always cared about pork, but in the past, federal transportation bills at least tried to address major transportation problems. In the 1950s, the interstate highway system was created to bolster national security as well as individual mobility in the automotive age. In 1991, Congress passed a transportation bill with funding for buses, trains and bicycle paths as well as traditional highways, a response to car-dependent trends in American culture and federal policies. Continue reading
Public Sour on Earmarks?
Instapundit links to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that suggests that curtailing earmarks is Americans top priority for their congressmen to do in this legislative session:
Among all Americans, a 39% plurality say the single most important thing for Congress to accomplish this year is curtailing budgetary "earmarks" benefiting only certain constituents.Following on "earmarks" heels is immigration at 32%. Now don't get me wrong I think that earmarking has gotten completely out of control over the last decade, but I have my doubts about this poll. It looks like it might be like those polls that show that the vast majority of Americans believe that the majority of Congressmen and Senators are corrupt, but not the man or woman representing their district or state. The actual quote from the poll is "Prohibiting Members of Congress from directing federal funds to specific projects benefiting only certain constituents". That sounds pretty bad, but when lawmakers tout their ability to steer money to their home district they get a lot of credit from constituents. Check out this article today about Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC) from today's Ashville Citizen-Times titled "Taylor controversial but effective in U.S. House":
As a 16-year veteran of the House of Representatives, Charles Taylor has generated his fair share of controversy, but he’d much rather talk about money he’s generated for projects in Western North Carolina. “It has been my privilege to secure millions of federal dollars for these efforts through my position on the House Appropriations Committee, and I will continue to do so,” Taylor, a Brevard Republican first elected to Congress in 1990, said in a statement.Taylor is not afraid to talk about his ability to use earmarks for his district. If this poll showed that curtailing earmarks is the top priority of Americans, as it intends to do, then why would Taylor go around talking like this. Wouldn't he be flopping around trying to play to the polls like every lawmaker is doing right now over gas prices? Just my two cents. Continue reading
Just Keep on Usin’ Me, Until You Use Me Up:
My colleague Bill Allison came up with a new lede for the Washington Post story today on Alan Mollohan's (D-WV) defense of his securing earmarks for campaign contributors:
The former ranking minority member of the House Ethics Committee said he saw nothing wrong with using his position on the appropriations committee to secure federal funding for the organizations and companies of friends, former staffers, and his own real estate partners.Apparently, Mollohan thinks that there is no reason that anybody should question him for investing with his campaign contributors who have received million dollar earmarks from him. Nothing to see here! Continue reading
Burns’ Massive Earmark; Coburn’s Amendment:
According to Knight Ridder Newspapers, Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) inserted one of the largest earmarks into the controversial emergency spending legislation for Katrina and Iraq. Burns' earmark totals $3.9 billion and is meant "to help farmers hurt by any natural disaster, not just last year's hurricanes. The money includes aid to offset the high costs of oil, making agriculture one of the few industries to get energy-related assistance." Meanwhile Tom Coburn's (R-OK) amendment to kill the railroad relocation in Mississippi, derisively labeled the "railroad to nowhere", failed in a 49-48 vote. Some those voting to keep the $700 million railroad relocation earmark in the spending bill "were several of the 35 senators who had pledged earlier in the day to back Bush's veto if he cast it." UPDATE: NZ Bear at Porkbusters has a roll call of those voting against Coburn's amendment.
Continue readingIn Blog Daylight:
- Ken Silverstein has a must-read post on earmarks at Harpers.org. Here's a slice of the action:
Consider here the tangled tale of Representative Pete Visclosky, an Indiana Democrat and a powerhouse on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, and a Washington lobby shop called The PMA Group. In November 2004, Visclosky secured a $900,000 earmark—the final tranche of $6.9 million in federal funding he won—to build the Purdue Technology Center, a high-tech “business incubator” in Merrillville, Indiana. Two months later, Visclosky participated in a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the inauguration of the center. Visclosky also took credit for recruiting four of the center's seven charter firms, 21st Century Systems of Virginia, ProLogic of West Virginia, ACT-I of Texas, and Sierra Nevada of Nevada. But on closer inspection, Visclosky's actions are less like “recruiting” and more like “quid pro quo.” According to campaign finance records, all four of those firms have donated generously to Visclosky in the past, with ProLogic giving $19,000 to Visclosky since last year—making it the leading donor for his current reelection campaign. Sierra Nevada, ACT-I and, 21st Century are each on the list of the top-20 donors.
- Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit provides a Porkbusters Update. Reynolds quotes a report that indicates that Senators Bill Frist (R-TN), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) have put together "34 Senate signatures on a letter backing the veto threat the President laid out yesterday on the groaning Senate supplemental."
- Tim Shoop at Govexec's FedBlog writes about all those lawmakers justifying the earmarking practice. His take on it: "That's right folks. Hundreds of congressmen jockeying and horse-trading for approval of their pet projects is better than experienced professionals--accountable to their politically appointed overseers--making rational decisions about how to most effectively distribute appropriated dollars."
GOP In-Fighting Over Earmark Reforms:
The Associated Press is reporting that the House Republicans have not been able to come to an agreement on the earmark reform provisions in the lobbying and ethics "reform" bill (if you want to know why I use quotations marks go here). In one corner is Appropriations Chair Jerry Lewis (R-CA) who is peeved that the earmark reform only targets earmarks originating out of his committee. Lewis declared that a reform that "does not touch on the 'Bridge to Nowhere' is not really reform." In the other corner is Mike Pence (R-IN), the spokesman for the most conservative Republicans. He said to CongressDailyPM that Lewis' argument against limiting earmark reform to the Appropriations Committee alone "feels to many of us like an effort to defeat earmark reform." Caught in the middle is Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) who is "confident" the bill will be "on the floor tomorrow" despite Republicans having "some work to do on earmark reform". In the Senate Tom Coburn (R-OK) is planning to offer amendments to the emergency spending bill directly targeting spending that he wants to cut, including the Gulf Coast railroad sought by Trent Lott, Thad Cochran, and Haley Barbour. (CongressDailyPM)
Continue readingAgainst Pork Before They Were For It:
Ed Fuelner writing in the Chicago Sun-Times reminds us that Senators Trent Lott (R-MS) and Thad Cochran (R-MS) were against pork before they were for it:
Back in 1993, Lott and Cochran helped defeat President Bill Clinton's ill-advised "stimulus" package, a $16.3 billion pork-barrel measure (ironically, almost the same amount that's been wastefully added to the current spending bill). "And where are we going to get the money?" Cochran asked Congress then. "We are going to increase the deficit, which requires the government to borrow more money and to pay more interest. That is not economically healthy, that is economically dangerous."Continue reading
The Problem with Earmarks:
Everywhere you look there seems to be another congressman writing earmarks for campaign contributors. This time we have Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL):
Firefly Energy, a three-year-old Peoria firm, received a significant boost when U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood earmarked $2.5 million in federal defense funds for it last fall. A member of the House Appropriations Committee, LaHood also helped direct $26 million in defense funds to Caterpillar Inc., the largest employer in his district. In addition, he steered $200,000 to Peoria's Proctor Hospital. What LaHood, R-Peoria, did not mention when touting the federal funds he brought home to his district was that lobbyists for all three businesses were at the same time raising money for his campaign.Earlier in the year LaHood had told the 23 lobbyists that organize fundraisers for him to stop holding them so that he could avoid the "perception of a special relationship." After crunching the numbers LaHood found out that 8 of the 23 lobbyists had raised $99,655 for his campaign, or a third of all his campaign contributions. And as it turns out one of those lobbyists, Bill Lane, lobbies for Caterpillar, Inc. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) - who has affirmed his support for earmarks - helped secure the Caterpillar funding on the Senate side. However, Capterpillar lobbyists have never held a fundraiser for him. Continue reading
Souder’s Shopping List
Sylvia A. Smith, the Washington editor of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, emails to say that Rep. Mark Souder voluntarily discloses to the paper a list of his earmarks, and sends this fine story along to prove it. I found these paragraphs especially interesting:
Souder wants $159.5 million for projects small ($25,000 apiece for two county programs to include residents’ irises in a national identification data bank) and large ($31.5 million for equipment to train Indiana Air National Guard pilots). Continue reading
59063
