Earmarks.  Pork.  Call them what you wish.  I call them our nation’s fiscal cancer.

Earmarks are insignificant as a dollar amount in relation to our total federal spending (entitlement programs are the lion’s share).  However, earmarks are what the military calls a “force multiplier.”  They act to dramatically increase federal spending far beyond their own cost.  How, you ask?

When presented with a bloated spending bill many legislators will refuse to support it.  But when a pork project (or multiple pork projects) for their district is inserted into the bill their opposition softens and they may switch to support.  This clearly makes no sense because the total amount of money to be spent is now higher than the previous amount that was objectionable.  Voila!  Total spending goes out of control as politicians vote in favor of massive spending bills for a pittance of local money.

Politicians do this because they sincerely believe that pork will help them get reelected.  This is where you come in.  Every voter needs to recognize that all of those pork projects and structures bearing the names of elected officials are nothing more than taxpayer funded campaign material.  When you see a picture of a smiling politician presenting a community grant in the paper you need to think about the reason he/she is smiling.  He is smiling because he knows that every sucker voter seeing that picture paid for that advertisement.  Some recent polling indicates that voters may be getting wise to this racket, but that message needs to be clearly articulated to the elected officials.

Another dangerous aspect of pork spending is that it can be a source of corruption.  The way that the government is supposed to spend money is that Congress authorizes the expenditure of funds.  Career professionals, not politicians, in the Executive Branch dispassionately determine specifically how that money should be spent to best achieve the nation’s objectives.  There is considerable oversight into this process to try to prevent corruption.  For earmarks, though, there is considerably less oversight, which has led to numerous cases of alleged and actual corruption over the years - most recently Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska.  Legislators are able to quietly, covertly tuck earmarks into bills without even subjecting them to the consideration of the full legislative body, much less the public.

The hidden nature of earmarks creates a fertile breeding ground for legislators to provide favors for campaign contributors, friends, family, and, of course, themselves.  Often it is extremely difficult to find a smoking gun that defines a quid pro quo transaction.  In the case of Ted Stevens he hasn’t been charged with any quid pro quo (yet), he’s only been charged with insufficient disclosure of gifts.  Occasionally a legislator is as sloppy as Duke Cunningham was and leaves a concrete trail of their malfeasance.  All too often we are only able to marvel at the extent to which big contributors “just happen” to get huge chunks of earmarked money.  Funny how that works out.

Even if there isn’t a whiff of ethical conflicts surrounding an earmark it still likely to be wasted money.  Again, revisit the way money is supposed to get spent in the government.  Career professionals - people who dedicate their working lives to studying focused issues - are supposed to decide how to best spend the limited taxpayer resources that they receive.  Legislators do not have the specialized training (or the time) necessary to make informed decisions about, for example, where bridges should be built or which weapons our military truly needs.  Earmarks result in inefficient spending.  Period.

Nationally, the topic of earmarks has exposed a fracture in the Republican Party (see below for an excerpt of this column).  The party must choose from the likes of Ted Stevens and Richard Shelby, both unabashed porkers, and Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint, both unapologetic fiscal conservatives.  I think the correct choice couldn’t be clearer.  The porkers helped to grow government under Republican control of both Congress and the White House despite pretending to be fiscal conservatives.  Stark fact: as of 2006 (when the GOP lost Congress) the Bush administration grew government more than either Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter.  The Republican Party MUST choose to follow the path of true fiscal restraint - to include substantial earmark reform or outright elimination - or it faces the very real possibility of officially allowing the Democrats become the party of small government (as ridiculous as that might sound).

From the aforementioned Wall Street Journal column:

The Republican Party is facing what Ronald Reagan called “a time for choosing.” A real argument is raging over how much it should turn its back on the bad habits that cost it control of Congress in 2006.

…

Mr. Coburn notes that many members feel compelled to vote for bloated spending bills, fearing their local projects will be stripped out.

…

One reason Congress now has even lower approval numbers than in 2006 is the failure of Democrats to make good on their vow to clean up the earmark process. A “moratorium” on earmarks has been quietly set aside; and the Congressional Research Service has been directed by Congressional leaders to no longer respond to requests from members on the size, number or background of earmarks. “Democrats claim the earmarks will now be transparent, but they’re taking away the very data that lets us know what’s really happening,” says South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint. Democratic earmark reform, concludes Mr. Coburn, “not only failed to drain the swamp, but gave the alligators new rights.”

…

They may not like it, but Mr. Coburn is showing Republicans how the GOP can return to its small government roots. Consider Ronald Reagan, who in 1987 vetoed a highway bill because it had a mere 121 earmarks in it.

Reagan quoted a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1796, warning that allowing Congress to spend federal money for local projects would set off “a scene of scramble among the members (for) who can get the most money wasted in their State, and they will always get most who are meanest.” Reagan didn’t think that represented good government or good politics. Republicans today should heed his warning.

One of the bright spots of having John McCain as the party’s nominee is that he is a proven fiscal conservative with a track record as a pork buster.  Republicans can cite numerous reasons why they aren’t excited about McCain for one issue or another, but when it comes to respect for the taxpayer’s money he has few peers.  Barack Obama has not shown anywhere near the same inhibition when it comes to spending our money on pet projects.

In Alabama’s 5th Congressional District the Republican nominee, Wayne Parker, supports a one year moratorium on earmarks.  He recognizes the corrupting effect of earmarks (he discusses earmark reform under the “Ethics in Government” category), although he stops short of pledging to abstain from earmarks.  On the Democrat side Parker Griffith has already staked out his position while serving as a state senator.  Just a couple of weeks ago he put our tax dollars to work, presenting a $5,000 state check to a local organization.  Congratulations to all of us for buying him some complimentary press coverage, as we have done many times in the past.

Alabama’s august senior senator has appropriated $4 million for a parking deck in Tuscaloosa.  Clearly parking in T-town is a federal concern.  One can’t post a link to his taxpayer funded gift to UAT without noting his ties to the community.

Not that it would matter, but Shelby should read this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

The Club for Growth recently conducted a nationwide poll on government spending, and the results were exactly the opposite of what most politicians have been saying for years. Voters are fed up with Washington’s out-of-control spending. Politicians aren’t representing the will of the people when they bring home the bacon. They are really representing the will of their special-interest cronies. And it’s not just conservative voters who feel that way. Voters across the board have finally found something they can agree on even if their elected officials can’t: It’s time to cut the fat, even if that means fewer projects for their own districts.

Conducted in late June, the poll surveyed 800 voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46%. Likely voters were asked the following question: “All things being equal, for whom would you be more likely to vote for the U.S. Congress: 1) A candidate who wants to cut overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district or 2) A candidate who wants to increase overall spending on federal programs, as long as more federal spending and projects come to your district?”

…

Voters across America don’t see their elected officials “listening” and “providing.” Instead they see spending that is wasteful, prone to corruption, arbitrary and inefficient. They see Republican congressmen like Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney hauled off to jail for earmark-related corruption. They see Congress lavishing their hard-earned tax dollars on such projects as the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska, the Mule and Packers Museum in California, and the Lobster Institute in Maine. Even worthy-sounding earmarks like a local science lab are viewed with suspicion. After all, these projects are not subject to competitive review and bidding, and they are designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

Citizens Against Government Waste released their 2008 Pig Book today. The top three porkers, Senators Thad Cochran, Ted Stevens, and Richard Shelby, all share one thing in common. They’re all Republicans. It’s kind of hard for the party to proclaim itself as the party of fiscal restraint when prominent members are flagrantly wasting taxpayer dollars.

As usual the Pig Book is chock full of programs so ridiculous it is hard to imagine our elected officials would have the gall to fund them. Cricket research. A lobster institute that lists as one of its major accomplishments a lobster dog “bisque-it.” Nearly $2 million for the “Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service” inserted by… you guessed it: Rep. Charles Rangel. A jazz center.

It would be funny if it weren’t true.

Alabama Senator Richard Shelby tied for last place in Citizens Against Government Waste’s annual “Porker of the Year” competition.  He finished with a paltry 4.1% of the vote.  Mine was one.  Jack Murtha ran away with the competition with over 63% of the votes.  I’m sure the outcome won’t dampen Shelby’s annual quest to waste copious federal tax dollars on all kinds of useless projects, though.

Not really surprising, but Huntsville Times editorial page writer David Prather defends congressional earmarks.  His column demonstrates that he has absolutely no idea why one would consider earmarks - pork - objectionable.  I wish I had more time to list my objections, but I’ll be brief and I’m sure I’ll forget a few:

• It’s not the money.  The earmarks themselves are a tiny fraction of the budget, but they have a multiplying effect.  Pet projects can encourage congressmen to vote for otherwise bloated or offensive legislation.  I personally believe that earmarks have played a key roll in mollifying opposition to the Iraq War in Congress.  Some lawmakers might have opposed the war, but earmark sweeteners in their districts cajoled them into continually voting in favor of the war (see next objection as to why).
• Taxpayers should not be paying premiums for incumbency insurance.  People like Shelby use pork projects - paid for with our tax dollars - to get free, positive press.  This is my biggest objection.  I find it appalling the way legislators use earmarks as a way of securing both future elections and their legacy, often in the face of an otherwise dismal record.
• They are not openly debated or subject to any reasonable scrutiny.  This results in spending on wasteful projects and other non-essential projects that are not worthy of scarce federal dollars and would not withstand debate.
• Very few earmarks are spent on what can be considered a federal issue.  Prather lists the TVA, which at least was a multi-state, and therefore federal, endeavor.  I wonder why he didn’t list off things like parking decks as justifiable earmarks?  Because the federal government should not be paying one thin nickel on local projects!

Feel free to chime in with more.

Alabama Senator Richard Shelby is one of six nominees for the prestigious Porker of the Year award from Citizens Against Government Waste.  Congratulations to our august senior senator!

The best news, though, is that you - the larded constituent - can vote in support of Shelby.  He’ll need your support; the competition is tough with legislators including Jack Murtha (D-PA) and Don Young (R-AK).

Be sure to vote for Shelby and show him that you recognize his wasteful ways.

Tucked within the bloated omnibus spending bill recently passed by Congress and signed by President Bush were over 9,000 earmarks worth more than $7 billion. I took a few minutes to parse the list of earmarks provided by Sen. DeMint for all of the ones specific to Alabama and totaled them for all to see. The waste is profligate. Our tax dollars are being used to study catfish genetics, build a kitchen, and to renovate a theater just to name a few - and that is just in Alabama. The list also includes the recently announced project to tear up a perfectly good road in Huntsville and replace it with a bridge.

Senator Richard Shelby predictably led the pack with $27 million in earmarks. Sen. Jeff Sessions rang up a more svelte $3 million tally. The leading porkers in the house were Mike Rogers, Bud Cramer, and Robert Aderholt. Spencer Bachus, Terry Everett, and Artur Davis showed considerably more restraint with our money.

Remember folks, you just paid for their campaign advertisements!

One of the factors that led to the GOP losing control of Congress was their lack of fiscal restraint.  Sure, they talk a good game, but their actions and words were at odds.  Being resigned to minority status wasn’t all bad.  Republicans have typically filled the role quite well - blasting free spending Democrats and mounting the occasional symbolic filibuster to curb spending increases.  It lets them actually do what they say.

Now it appears the game has changed.  With Mitch McConnell running the Republican minority in the Senate he is taking a different route.  Instead of emphasizing spending restraint he is seeking to pass flush spending bills - in excess of the president’s request - rife with pork projects.

From Robert Novak:

House Republican Leader John Boehner sounds determined about sticking to President Bush’s budget and ending up with a continuing resolution (CR) keeping spending at present levels. McConnell plays his cards closer to his vest than Boehner but seems to favor cutting a deal with the Democrats for a compromise exceeding Bush’s limits. A CR would contain no new earmarks, while an omnibus bill would be festooned with earmarks for lavish pork-barrel spending back home — desired by McConnell among others.

This poses a fateful choice for a troubled Republican Party in danger of national decline. Rank-and-file House Republicans press Boehner to “regain our brand” as the party of fiscal responsibility. But the Senate GOP, led by McConnell, sees a different route to survival. They feel the need to bring home the bacon to constituents, and that means cutting a deal with Majority Leader Harry Reid for an earmark-heavy omnibus bill.

As a point of reference the Democrat drafted omnibus bill contains 11,932 earmarks.

From AL.com:

Last week, U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Huntsville, announced he had won in an appropriations bill $1 million to raise Church Street between Williams and Clinton avenues.

Steve Dinges, an assistant director in the Planning Department, said the idea is to raise Church Street similar to the way Monroe Street was raised a few years ago.

…

Construction for the bridge has not been scheduled. Bush said that “very rough” cost estimates range from $3 million to $3.5 million.

“We’ll find a way to get it done” if the city gets the $1 million Cramer announced, Fanning said.

The money for the Church Street bridge and other projects is included in a 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill adopted by conference committee members from the U.S. House and Senate, Cramer said.

The bill now must be approved by both houses and signed by the president.

Cramer said the bill also includes:

$1.25 million for the parking garage the city plans to build at Lincoln and Green streets and Holmes Avenue.

$750,000 for widening of Winchester Road from Old Dominion Circle to Naugher Road.

$500,000 for improvements to Wall-Triana Highway.

Next time you hear or read a story about how the federal government doesn’t have enough money to maintain bridges and other infrastructure on interstates just remember this article (and I’m sure identical ones in every congressional district).  Every project Cramer listed falls under the purview of the state or local municipality and are not federal concerns.

The Church Street bridge would doubtlessly be a fine and useful structure.  In fact I take the family to Big Spring Park frequently and walk across often busy Church Street.  But if the crossing is deemed dangerous then it should be up to the city, and the city alone, to resolve the situation.  It is most certainly is not a federal concern.  Moreover, the current street serves its intended purpose quite well - its not like this is a bridge intended to replace a deteriorating, dilapidated road.  If federal dollars for infrastructure maintenance are so tight that some think tax increases are necessary then maybe the federal government shouldn’t be funding unnecessary pork projects just so legislators can get some free, positive press.

A looming presidential veto will snag (probably very temporarily) some Alabama pork projects according to AL.com.

President Bush said today that one of the reasons he vetoed legislation to fund labor, health and education programs for next year was because it had too much pork. The White House counts 2,200 earmarks worth almost $1 billion. His statement was nonpartisan on its face but when he blames Congress where the Democrats are in the majority, you can figure it out.

…

For the record, pork in Washington is bipartisan. Alabama’s delegation — 7-2 GOP — corralled its share in the newly vetoed bill. Here is a sample from the Republican members of the delegation:

$9.3 million for a new health services building at the University of Alabama, sponsored by Sen. Richard Shelby and Rep. Jo Bonner

$100,000 for the town of Argo for a senior citizens center, sponsored by Rep. Spencer Bachus and Shelby

$350,000 for Gadsden State Community College for technology upgrades, sponsored by Reps. Robert Aderholt and Mike Rogers.

Just to name a few.

What a shame.  Another multi-million dollar taxpayer funded monument to Shelby’s greatness might be on hold.

Also… What in the wide world of sports is the federal government doing paying for a senior citizens center in Argo friggin’ Alabama?  I don’t see how it could possibly be a national concern.