GOP suddenly pro-Earmark (or is that pro-Pork, perhaps?)

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, during the last time Republicans controlled Congress (which started in 1994, based on the "Contract With America") there were about 1300 earmarks for nearly $8 billion - at a time when we had a budget surplus under the Clinton administration. Then by the final year of GOP control a decade later (2005) their were 10 times as many earmarks totaling over $27 billion, and a record budget deficit - which the elite pundits are still trying to blame on Obama.

You can learn more about the man the Democrats call the “Prince of Pork” -- GOP Congressman Hal Rogers (KY-05) -- as he takes over chairmanship of the House Appropriations Committee by reading various articles online; he's brought so much money for Kentucky that they've renamed the former Daniel Boone Parkway the Hal Rogers Parkway.

Citizens Against Government Waste named Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) their "Porker of the Month" in August, somehow without mentioning the word nepotism.

“Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) August Porker of the Month for sponsoring legislation that could give federal funding to his daughter’s nonprofit organization, which promotes overseas wildlife protection for cheetahs.”

It's probably a coincidence that his daughter is the Grants Administrator of the Cheetah Conservation Fund.

But there's good news.  This sort of spending (millions to a fund based in Namibia) won't lead to bigger government. It's just $5 million a year to a non-government agency based overseas.

Look, I'm not saying conservation and cheetahs aren't important, it's just a question of priorities.  The GOP voted down a one-time payment of $250 to Senior Citizens... but that's another story.  My point is, it's about priorities, and once they capture a majority naturally the GOP priorities have changed to ensure their donors will help them get re-elected.

At least they haven't flip-flopped on tax-breaks for the rich.

I know, right?

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

After earmarks?

GOP leaders, apparently taking cues from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and thrilled to be in a majority in the House of Representatives when the next Congress convenes in January, seem intent on banning legislative earmarks despite reforms initiated during the 110th Congress which brought much-needed transparency and accountability to this relatively small part of the allocation process. In fact, reforms have already reduced earmark spending by about $3 billion, to the point where the process now represents between 1% - 2% of federal spending.

But here's the million dollar question: By what new process will funding decisions be made if earmarks go away? If Congress doesn't specify allocation decisions, then it falls to the executive branch. Will spending choices made by agencies and their politically appointed heads be somehow superior to those made by our elected officials? It may sound like progress at first blush -- it's obviously got the elite GOP messaging teams excited, and right-leaning media commentators love it -- but GOP Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) doesn't think it's a good idea at all.

Inhofe, who says publicly he'll keep right on earmarking, knows the danger in moving away from the recent reforms to adopt a new process under control of political appointees.

Is that "executive branch control" over spending really what the people who assert the government has too much control and that earmarks are simply - and always - pork spending honestly think is the "best way to rein in big government," or is it more sound-bites setting up partisan bickering that will distract Congress from taking up more important challenges?

Look, when it's done away from the light, if the media and other watchdogs fail to follow the money, then earmarking is a system open to abuse and fraud. But are we going to ask Congress to invent a whole new process during a time when the GOP controls the House while Democrats retain the majority in the Senate and prominent GOP Senators are saying that gives too much spending control to the Obama administration?

Oh that should go really quickly.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

GOP bid for earmark backfires, Shelby embarasses Congressional Republicans

It was amazing to many to learn recently that it was one Senator, Alabama's Richard Shelby, on a quest for a massive earmark for his home state, that was able to suspend all progress in filling key leadership roles in many government agencies.

No wonder some in the GOP lament government effectiveness as unattainable: their own party is preventing many key agencies from having leaders. Americans were stunned to learn that the objections weren't based on qualifications, or even philosophical differences, but were simply a partisan ploy that amounted to demanding a kick-back for Alabama.

There's nothing inherently wrong about earmarks.  They allow for quick resolutions to funding decisions that don't require much, if any, debate. They can be used to replace a fallen bridge, or abused to fund a pork-barrel project that benefits a key constituent or city... but Shelby's audacity has backfired, and he's walking back from his stand after embarrassing his party -- later claiming it was just to get attention.

Well done, Senator; you've drawn attention. The President threatened to take a page out of the former administration's strategy book. Your bluff has been called, and people around the country are starting to call your petulant, obstructionist Grand Old Party the Republi-can'ts.

President Obama's statement following action by the Senate to confirm twenty-seven nominees reveals he's getting tougher dealing with Republicans playing political games at the expense of the citizens of the USA:

"Today, the United States Senate confirmed 27 of my high-level nominees, many of whom had been awaiting a vote for months.At the beginning of the week, a staggering 63 nominees had been stalled in the Senate because one or more senators placed a hold on their nomination. In most cases, these holds have had nothing to do with the nominee’s qualifications or even political views, and these nominees have already received broad, bipartisan support in the committee process.

Instead, many holds were motivated by a desire to leverage projects for a Senator’s state or simply to frustrate progress. It is precisely these kinds of tactics that enrage the American people.

And so on Tuesday, I told Senator McConnell that if Republican senators did not release these holds, I would exercise my authority to fill critically-needed positions in the federal government temporarily through the use of recess appointments. This is a rare but not unprecedented step that many other presidents have taken. Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of these holds and allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in the Senate.

While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess. If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future."

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Maverick my ass

Once I learned just how much pork Sarah Palin got via earmarks I could barely believe the commerical media were glossing over it. But for McCain to try to reclaim the maverick personna after how he toadied up to Bush since 2000, and trying to paint his ticket as conservatives that can bring change? That's the epitome of unbelievable Rovian tactics.

We may not know much about Palin yet, but we do know votes for John McCain are votes for more of the same.

John McCain Lying About "Earmarks" - He's Got Several Of Them

Today on Fox News -- I was watching while writing about Kofi Bonner -- John McCain attacked Senator Barack Obama for taking earmarks, even though Obama has reported his earmarks.

But in the process, McCain claimed that he has never asked for one and has stated "And I’m proud to tell you, Chris, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state and I guarantee you I’ll veto those bills. I’ll ask for the line item veto and I’ll veto them and I’ll make the authors of them famous."

Well, McCain should start by making himself famous.

According to Think Progress.org , McCain asked for and got them twice. Think Progress writes that...

"McCain’s claim is false. In 2006, the senator teamed up with fellow Arizona senator Jon Kyl (R) to funnel $10 million toward the University of Arizona for an academic center named after the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Even Arizona lawmaker, Rep. Jeff Flake (R), said he was planning to “lean against the measure.” The National Taxpayers Union, another traditional McCain ally, questioned why the senator was making federal taxpayers foot the bill for the center.

In 2003, McCain also slipped $14.3 million into a defense appropriations bill to
create a buffer zone around Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. As Roll Call reported in 2003, this project violated McCain’s own anti-pork rhetoric:

The only problem is the project to acquire more land near the base was not requested by President Bush or fully authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee - two of McCain’s criteria for identifying so-called ‘pork.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), a notorious porker, was overjoyed that McCain had joined his side. “One man’s pork is another man’s alternate white meat,” said Stevens. “If he asked for it, we put it in.”"

Even a "correction" added by Roll Call to its 2003 report doesn't place McCain in the clear. He asked for money to be directed toward a project in his state, and he got it. That's an earmark.

Also, the Washington Post reports that in 1992 McCain asked for and got $5 million to be directed to a wastewater project in Arizona. The original request was rejected, causing McCain to go into action, approaching the EPA, and eventually President Bush I.

McCain should remember that people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Hillary Clinton's Trading Of Money From Developers For Bill "Earmarks" Draws LA Times Article' - John McCain Calls It Corrupt

It's about time this matter was given the attention it so needed.

YRACUSE, N.Y. — It's a real estate developer's sugar-plum dream: a mega-shopping mall complete with 10 Broadway-style theaters, an indoor river, a Tuscan village and a 39-story luxury hotel sheathed in green solar panels shaped like giant blades of grass. Plus as much as $1 billion in government-backed financing, thanks in part to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Not everyone thinks the plan, known as Destiny USA and still in the early bulldozer stage, is a good idea. Many on the Syracuse City Council consider its tax breaks a waste of public money. Others fear it could damage the struggling downtown area. Others question whether all its dazzling features will ever be built.

One thing is clear, however: Destiny is a classic example of how New York's junior senator has embraced old-fashioned pork-barrel politics, first to build power in the state, then to extend it nationwide as she becomes a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

And to fuel her rise, Clinton has relied on the controversial funding device known as "earmarking." The earmarks enabled her to win favor with important constituents, many of whom provided financial support for her campaigns.

In the case of Destiny, she teamed up with other New York lawmakers to secure federal backing for the private investment project. And she collected tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the developer and others associated with the project.

Nor does the Syracuse project stand alone. From the beginning of her Senate career, Clinton saw earmarks -- which enable lawmakers to bypass the normal budget process and insert narrowly drafted spending provisions directly into legislation -- as a key to funneling aid to a depressed area and building political power among normally Republican-leaning voters.

Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.

All told, Clinton has earmarked more than $2.3 billion in federal appropriations for projects in her state since her election to the Senate, much of it for public works projects funded in conjunction with fellow Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer and others in the New York congressional delegation.

A different scale

Clinton is not the biggest earmarker in Congress; senior congressional leaders and members of the appropriations committees can and do write many more such provisions into the huge spending bills they draft. But Clinton does significantly more earmarking than most others with her relatively low level of seniority.

Clinton's staff said she used the earmark privilege effectively for her constituents and denied any connection between her legislative action and campaign contributions.

Her record stands in contrast with others in the Senate seeking the presidency, particularly John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.). McCain, who has long opposed earmarks, does not write them. Obama has used the device, but now declines to earmark funds for private companies; he uses earmarks only to secure funds for government projects such as road building and hospital construction. Other senators seeking the presidency provide earmarks to home-state constituents and collect donations from recipients of the federal largesse. But The Times review found that Clinton does it on a different scale.

For example, in the appropriations bills that have passed the Senate so far this year, Clinton earmarked 216 separate projects for a total of $236.6 million. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) secured $112.8 million; Obama earmarked $90.4 million, and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) earmarked projects totaling $70.8 million.

Since Clinton arrived in the Senate, she has collected in excess of $1 million from earmark beneficiaries and their associates.

"This pattern shows that Clinton has made aggressive use of the pay-to-play earmark game," said Keith Ashdown, research director for the Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington.

The practice of congressional earmarking has a long history. But in recent years, its use has skyrocketed, and earmarking has emerged at the center of high-profile scandals, including the one that sent former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham of Rancho Santa Fe and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, both Republicans, to prison. Those scandals involved earmarks that led to the personal enrichment of lawmakers. There is no evidence of that in Clinton's case.

Because of the scandals, the practice of earmarking has become the subject of a heated debate among politicians, watchdog groups and good-government advocates.

Critics of earmarking object that it remains a relatively closed process that adds billions in spending directives, often over the objection of the president and Cabinet departments.

Democrats made earmark reform a priority when they took over Congress in January. The Senate passed rules making it easier to identify the authors of the once-secretive practice.

Clinton supported those basic reforms, but she and other Democratic senators running for president balked at a proposal by Obama that would have required members to disclose their proposed earmark requests, not just those that were enacted into law.

More...