The Pork-Barrel Files
Trichotillomania is a mental disorder, the compulsion to pull one's hair out. I think I have it. At least, I find reasons to tear out my hair.
Frayda Levin knows what I'm talking about. As chair of the New Jersey chapter of Americans for Prosperity, she's been very passionate on a host of issues. I met her in the course of fighting against eminent domain abuse. We risked follicular damage after Kelo.
Like all sensible taxpayers, Frayda opposes Congress's corrupt earmark culture, whereby congressmen use our tax dollars to fund their personal favor factories. Recently, she wrote to New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez asking him to support a legislative moratorium on earmarks.
Instead, Senator Menendez wrote back defending his support for earmarked pork. “While our federal agencies implement programs from Washington,” he countered, “they often do not understand the unique needs of the communities and the states.”
When Frayda responded to Senator Menendez, she pointed out how completely ludicrous it was to “send money to D.C.” and “then have to spend resources finding a sympathetic ear, who can, as you note, understand local needs.”
Frayda asked why the senator hadn’t initiated a shake-up of the admittedly out-of-touch federal bureaucracy. She mentioned the 10th Amendment, the role of the states, and inquired why this money should be going to the federal government in the first place.
She got no response to that.
I’m sure Menendez saw danger to his own scalp.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Comments(1)
We could use a few million-dollar ideas to help fight juvenile crime.
How about a half-million-dollar idea?
The Justice Department gave $500,000 to the World Golf Foundation. The foundation’s beneficiary program is called “First Tee.” It’s designed to get youngsters interested in that most civilized of sporting passions, golf.
Employees in the Justice Department had rated the program way down on their list. But the administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, J. Robert Flores, awarded the money anyway, ignoring programs that employees had ranked as much more effective.
“We need something really attractive to engage the gangs and the street kids, golf is the hook,” said the questionable administrator in question.
Yeah, right. Remember the midnight basketball leagues, supported as a brainy idea by Bill Clinton? Well, at least lots of inner city kids like basketball. Golf seems something of a stretch.
ABC News interviewed a former Justice Department employee for Nightline. Obviously disgruntled, the ex-employee called the program a “waste.”
It turns out that President Bush is the honorary chairman of First Tee. The clear implication? That’s why this golf gig got money while many obviously more practical programs were left unfunded.
Chalk it up to pork envy. Congress can’t have all the insider payola for itself.
Did somebody just yell “Fore!”? Well, it’s not “for(e) the children.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Comments(0)
We've got a mole in the U.S. Congress.
Not a foreign agent trying to undermine the American way of life. We’ve got plenty of homegrown politicians doing that already.
No, it’s a congressman who actually opposes porkbarrel spending. Now, a few others there also combat the regime of pay-for-play earmarks, of course — too few. But this guy sounds like he’s reading a script I dictated myself. It ain’t so. But gosh, I couldn’t agree more with the sentiments.
It’s Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona. His comments were picked up by C-Span and transcribed at their web site. Shadegg points out how darn corrupting the process has become.
The degree of tawdry mutual back-scratching can vary. But what is happening more and more is that congressmen are creating their own corporations. Staffing these corporations with relatives and pals. And then using the secretive earmark process to send funds to this entity. Everybody wins. The congressman and the cronies do, anyway.
Taxpayers lose in at least two ways. They’re losing money. And their purported representative is violating their trust. The Constitution of course is going out the window. There’s nothing in there about how congressmen may randomly lather their associates with taxpayer dough.
All done without any open debate, any clear public disclosure before the money is appropriated. Shadegg thinks it’s contemptible.
Mr. Congressman, when you’re right, you’re right.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Comments(0)
When politicians push hard for something, ramp up your skepticism level. Democrat? Republican? Doesn’t matter much.
The recent farm bill passed and went to the president, who vetoed it. So it went back to Congress, which over-rode the veto of this $300 billion bill, 316-108 in the House, 82-13 in the Senate.
So ask yourself, why do Democrats support these subsidies?
Democrats claim to be “for the little guy,” for equality. Trouble is, the federal government’s farm subsidies basically shovel money up the income ladder, not down it.
On average, farmers are better off than the people who pay the subsidies. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation explains that most subsidies go overwhelmingly “to large commercial farms, which report an average income of $200,000 and a net worth of nearly $2 million.”
We pay $25 billion to these rich farmers. And add another $12 billion in higher food prices, which are the last thing we need now, with Congress’s idiotic ethanol subsidies already pushing prices up.
So why would any Democrat support continuing such absurdity?
Because Democrats like siphoning off our money through government and using it to buy friends and stay in power. That’s all they really believe in. Equality? Hah!
Why would Republicans support it?
Same reason.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Comments(0)
Three. Count ’em. Three special elections where congressional Democrats have defeated Republicans in seats previously held by Republicans, the latest in Mississippi.
GOP Minority Leader John Boehner offered reporters, “[T]his is a change election, and if we want Americans to vote for us, we have to convince them that we can fix Washington.”
Republicans are in big trouble. Because no one much believes they even want to fix Washington, much less that they could accomplish the task. Unless Boehner means “fix” in a different sense, as in “the fix is in.”
Years of pork-barrel pig-outs have taken a toll on the public. After losing the majority in ’06, congressional Republicans are poised to lose a lot more seats in ’08.
Not because folks are inspired by congressional Democrats. Not at all. No, the problem is the negatives associated with Republicans, who have discredited themselves.
In Mississippi, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $1.8 million on ads blasting the Republican candidate for raising taxes.
To win elections you have to connect with voters. Pledge to do what voters want.
I remember back in 1994, when Republicans took the Congress. They had a Contract with America. They had ideas, actual plans. What were they? Hmmm . . . Balanced Budget Amendment . . . Term limits . . . Spending restraint . . . political reforms.
Hey! Should we remind the Republicans about this?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Comments(1)
What’s the right metaphor for the endlessly complicated assemblage of porkbarrel stuffed into federal spending bills?
Is it a Rubik’s cube, something to be finally and fully revealed when you figure out how to untangle all the interlocking layers? Or more of a matryoshka doll, the nested Russian figurine that reveals yet another copy of itself every time you open it up and think you’ve finally reached the last?
A new book by Winslow Wheeler details an approach to national defense many voters may not know about. Nor even students of porkbarrel. It’s called The Wastrels of Defense: How Congress Sabotages U.S. Security. And it’s all about how congressmen scrub defense-related budget items to make room for pork.
Wheeler spent thirty years as a congressional staffer working on national security issues, on both sides of the aisle. He learned that lawmakers are not simply using the opportunity of a spending bill to lard it with unrelated spending. They’re actually cutting defense expenditures on training and equipment and the like. A kind of sausage-making that’s simple in essence, complicated in ugly political detail. In one chapter, Wheeler recounts how $2.4 billion in actual defense-related items was chopped from a bill while $4 billion in pork was added.
Military spending can also be ill-conceived. But obviously, it should be advocated or opposed on the merits. Not arbitrarily funneled into wasteful favor-trading.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Comments(0)
First there were “internal improvements.” Then there was out-and-out “pork” — that is, spending by the federal government for projects of a local, not “federal,” or national, character.
Then, says H.L. Mencken, author of that great big book, The American Language, there was “pork-barrel spending.” Same thing as pork, really. But perhaps the amount of it had grown so much that Americans needed a metaphorical barrel to handle it all.
And then there were earmarks. These were pork spending initiatives not exactly inserted into legislation properly, but somewhat surreptitiously into legislative addenda.
And now there’s something even harder to find, harder to keep track of: “soft earmarks.”
It seems all congressfolk need do is ask, politely, that something be funded. No mention of who really gets the money; no mention, even of the amount. But hey, if asked-for nicely enough, the executive branch has proved more than willing to fund.
Fund what? Oh, a Christian shortwave radio in Madagscar. Pest-fighting efforts in Maryland. Saving hawks in Haiti.
According to the New York Times, these have all been funded without anyone ever really writing out what the cost would be, or even saying “fund this.” It’s all very polite.
And insidious. We work hard for the money; we don’t want it spent so easily that soft words are all that’s needed. I want it voted on. Openly. Honestly.
And preferably defeated.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Comments(0)
Computers are only human . . . er, computers are only finite beings — that’s better — and can only do as much at any given time as their microprocessors, random-access memory, storage space, network connections, and software allow.
On a Wednesday in March, the computer database that takes earmark requests from Congress failed. In the words of Roll Call, “an overload of pork requests clogged the House Appropriations Committee’s Web site” and forced “an extension to the request deadline to next week.”
So our representatives are still at it. Let it not be said that they aren’t busy. They are so busy that they clog up computers with too many requests for data entry.
I could commiserate. I have had computer troubles too. I sometimes even resent the way my life is being run by the demands of technology. I don’t always feel liberated.
But for once I’m sympathizing with the poor, dumb machines. Too many requests for too much pork! It’s not their fault. They can only do what they do.
We should take our hats off and honor these computers. They’ve suffered much to accommodate Congress. Let’s thank them. In fact, thank goodness they’ve suffered failure before they completely tanked our economy.
Yes, we may have to pay the price for all the requests, and for all the computers . . . but we wouldn’t need upgrades if Congress could just keep its “generosity” with our money under control.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Comments(1)
Popular political blogger Glenn Reynolds, he of InstaPundit fame, has done lots of yeoman work to bring attention to the proliferation of earmarks in the federal budget.
InstaPundit and others have pushed to make the process of stuffing pork into spending bills a lot more transparent, so constituents can see what’s happening while the wheeling and dealing is still in process.
Despite gestures from lawmakers in that direction, the effort has largely stalled. The Democrats, like the Republicans before them, proved more inclined to favor reform before they gained their new majority. Earmarks waste taxpayers’ money in ways ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous; they still get tucked away in murky committee reports, instead of listed openly in the bills lawmakers are constitutionally instructed to read and then vote on.
Twenty-three House members have publicly pledged to forgo earmarks. The Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus, has posted the list. Go to my PaulJacob.com and click the “Swearing Off Pork” logo to get to it. These 23 abstainers may not make up even a fourth of the conservative caucus, let alone a hefty percentage of the full 435-member House . . . but we gotta start somewhere.
Want the list to grow? Listen to the InstaPundit, who says: “Call your Representatives — congratulate ’em if they’re on it, and if they’re not, ask why not.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Comments(0)
I talk about pork a lot not because I’m obsessed with pigs, but because I cover Congress.
I talk about pork spending not because it’s the worst spending the federal government does, but because it should be the easiest to stop.
And yet it goes on and on. Pork spending is snuck into legislation as “earmarks.” The President of the United States explained it to Congress last year:
Over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate. They are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn’t vote them into law. I didn’t sign them into law. Yet, they’re treated as if they have the force of law.
Actually, the prez went on to say the practice must stop. Congress applauded. But they might as well have been snorting, we’ve seen tens of thousands of earmarks since.
I have mentioned before that the President could simply sign an Executive Order telling his branch of government to ignore earmarks not actually placed in the legislation.
And so he did, on January 29th. All earmarks not voted on by Congress from now on will be as if nothing. Further, the president promised to veto any bill that did not cut the amount of earmarks actually voted on by Congress in half.
So is the stalemate over pork . . . over? Well, with a cut in half of earmarks as the goal, we seem set to go only halfway.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Listen to audio (MP3)Comments(0)
The Democrats took over Congress, pledging to curb the practice of earmarks.
They didn’t quite succeed. The omnibus spending bill they produced in December was filled with spending projects of a less-than-national character, most of which no congressperson but the original politician who placed it in the bill ever saw.So, just another sad story for fiscal responsibility, eh?
No. Senator Jim DeMint asked Congress’s research organization to prepare a report on the legality of these earmarks, and on the legality of the Executive Branch just ignoring them.
The verdict? Since most earmarks were placed not in the bill itself, but in subsidiary explanatory reports, their status as law falls way short of constitutionality.
So the president could easily issue an Executive Order instructing his underlings simply to ignore the earmarks. They weren’t placed in the omnibus bill as real laws, so it would be just fine to disregard them as the extra-legal finaglings they are.
This became a big issue in late December. Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner, alerted his readers to the issue repeatedly; there was great Internet buzz. But the buzz didn’t yield an immediate and unequivocal response from the White House.
Though anti-pork activists hailed the idea, Democrats have described it as all-out war between the branches of government.
A war on illegal spending? I’m a hawk.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Listen to audio (MP3)Comments(1)
It was the battle of 2006 and could be the battle of 2008.
In this corner, Senator Tom Coburn, inveterate foe of porkbarrel spending and other rampant congressional abuses. In the other, shameless porkbarreller par excellence Senator Ted Stevens.
In the American Spectator, Stephen Moore reports on an altercation between the two Republicans. Happened right after the election. It seems Stevens slithered over to Coburn and whined, “Well, Tom, I hope you’re satisfied for helping us lose the election.” In reply Coburn pointedly pointed out the obvious: “No, Ted, you lost us the election.”
Stevens, so stuck inside Beltway corruption that he can’t see his own faults for what they are, takes no blame for the GOP’s ‘06 electoral debacle. Rather, he holds criticism of his kind of bad behavior, by those who witnessed it — including insiders like Tom Coburn — as the problem.
For Stevens, engaging in logrolling and runaway trough-sloppery are okay. But complaining about it . . . that’s unforgivable! Members of the political club just don’t do that to each other, dontcha know.
Well, Coburn doesn’t know. He probably figures that unless staying in power is considered an end in itself, you obviously have to address the very problems you’re seeking to correct.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Listen to audio (MP3)Comments(0)
Which came first: the Chicken or the Egg?
I ask because Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader, brought it up. You see, Hoyer has supported earmarks totaling $96 million, including a $450,000 grant to the California-based InTune Foundation Group, to supposedly provide music education.
InTune officials say they aren’t sure what they are going to do with the money. The group’s director offered that, “It might be music camps. It might be lessons. It might be how to be a DJ. It might be how to create a television show.”
Last year InTune got $500,000 and failed to report what they did with the money.
Asked why he went to bat for this earmark, Hoyer replied, “I thought it was a program that would be a positive program.” Some testimonial! Of course, it couldn’t be the more than $30,000 that Hoyer’s political action committee has received from folks connected to InTune.
No, Hoyer told the Washington Post, there was no quid pro quo. He acknowledged a link between the earmarks he champions and his contributors. “If you support something . . .” Hoyer explained, “either through legislative language or verbal support or appropriated dollars, what happens is the proponents of those objectives wind up saying they want to support you. Sometimes it’s a question of which is the chicken and which is the egg.”
Of course, there’s no question that it is taxpayers who have to pay for this scrambled logic.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Listen to audio (MP3)Comments(1)
Remember how Democrats seized a congressional majority in 2006 — based partly on promises to reform a “culture of corruption”?
In 1994, the GOP also had a reformist agenda. But the so-called “Republican Revolution” actually installed a couple reforms before getting co-opted by politics-as-usual.
For the past couple years, especially after Hurricane Katrina, increasing pressure has been put on the Congress to reduce rampant earmarks. Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit fame, along with a group called Porkbusters, deserve credit for putting congressional feet to the fire. Some pork has indeed been cut thanks to their efforts. Oh, and to those of a few congressmen, such as Senators Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint.
But overall, the rising of tide of earmarks continues to lift lobbyist liners while sinking the fiscal ship of state. The Office of Management and Budget reports that there are over 12,000 earmarks slated for this fiscal year, totaling some $24.7 billion. Funding for a Woodstock museum and for some kind of home for the perfect Christmas tree were the only two earmarks axed from the billowing budget.
And all pork was supposed to be added to a searchable public database before being voted on, so we taxpayers could take a look and maybe raise a fuss. Congress accepted the requirement but has now waived it.
They call that reform? They agree to change how you do things, but add a proviso saying, “Oh, never mind!”?
That makes zero sense . . . and zero reform.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Listen to audio (MP3)Comments(0)
I have to give grudging acknowledgment to the efforts of Congressman Jeff Flake. Who, according to one headline, is “still preaching against earmarks.”
There are many ways office-holders can throw money at various groups to try to build their power base. Earmarks are just one of them. But as cozy bribes go, they are pretty blatant.
Still, no matter how blatant an abuse of power, many incumbents defend these special local projects ferociously. Give a multi-term congressman the satiric award of “King of Pork” and he’s likely to throw a party. “Hurrah! I’m the King of Pork! Yeah!”
Flake, on the other hand, has repeatedly gone after pork projects. But according to the Arizona Republic, “out of a total of 50 earmarks totaling more than $77 million that he challenged this year,” he managed to kill only one, a $129,000 earmark for a Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree project. So we’re stuck with deficient Christmas trees for now.
I applaud . . . but not as loudly as I might. Jeff Flake reneged on a term limit pledge. When he ran for the seat of outgoing Congressman Matt Salmon, back in 2000, he pledged to serve no more than three terms in Congress. He’s in his fourth.
Our representatives break their word all the time. But the case of Jeff Flake is particularly disappointing. He has this strong streak of good in him. But Jeff, even good people have to keep their word.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Listen to audio (MP3)Comments(0)
Chalk up another landmark achievement for congressional Democrats. Or so we're told. They passed an ethics and lobbying bill.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared it "momentous" and "historic." The Washington Post called it "a landmark bill." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dubbed it the "most sweeping ethics and lobbying reform in history," saying itwould produce "a government as good and honest as the people it represents."
Is he serious? Can this new law make Congress "good"? Or honest?
Does anyone really believe that?
Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn sure doesn't. As the Senate's biggest supporter of transparency regarding earmarks — and the strongest opponent of such pork in the first place — he has standing.
Coburn voted no , saying, "This bill is a landmark betrayal, not a landmark accomplishment. Congress had a historic opportunity to expose secretive pork-barrel spending but instead created new ways to hide that spending.
Sure, congressmen recognize the unpopularity of pork-barrel spending, the
wastefulness. But, you see, the politician benefits, growing more powerful with each big check sent to some people using others people's money. So politicians embrace reform, yes; talk reform, sure; even pass reform, of course . . . but they make very certain that there is no reform.
Americans are sick and tired of earmarks, but neither the biggest elephants or the boldest asses in Congress have done anything serious to end the abuse.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
Comments(0)
Without career politicians, life itself would be impossible. Or so they would have us think.
Take the recent _Washington Post_ headline: "N. Va. Area Braces for Life After Callahan."
The paper is talking about Vincent F. Callahan. He's been a local rep in the Virginia House of Delegatesfor the last 40 years . . . the first 30 of which, we are told by the Post, he was "idling in the shadows." The last ten he served as chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.
When he announced his retirement months ago, Callahan wasn't too shy to tell reporters how doggone important he has been, stating: "The stuff I have done over the years has been unsurpassed for any Northern Virginia legislator in history. I probably delivered more to my region and to the state than anyone else."
What has he delivered? Huge gobs of tax dollars. My tax dollars.
Did Wolf Trap, a performing arts center, really need the $3.5 million dollars he "inserted . . . in the budget"? They charge for their shows. A lot. Wasn't this really $3.5 million to subsidize arts for the area's wealthier folks?
But the folks at Wolf Trap love Callahan. Other special interests, too, have said thanks for sending us other people's money.
Will we survive without Mr. Callahan? Sure . . . though shucks, our taxes may not go up as fast. But I bet we can find someone to raise our taxes.
Equaling Callahan's arrogance . . . now that may take some seasoning once in office.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
Listen to audio (MP3)Comments(0)
Recently a National Review writer wanted to know what the big deal is with congressional porkbarrel spending. Sure, pork represents billions and billions of squandered taxpayer dollars. But it's still a relatively small portion of the federal budget. Shouldn't fiscal conservatives spend more time on more important battles?
So is pork much more than a "symbol" of government excess?
Yes. Earmarks - taxpayer-funded favor-doling to special interests - work as the major means by which career politicians function as career politicians . . . at the expense of our actual common interests. If citizens successfully roll back pork, a similar strategy could prove useful in helping roll back other misbegotten federal spending.
Replying to National Review, Senator Tom Coburn notes that despite protestations to the contrary, "Congress has the power to spend less money whenever it chooses. It is very simple. Congress can decide to do fewer earmarks and spend less money."
That's why I applaud citizen groups like Porkbusters. They aren't wasting their time. If and when they succeed, it's not as if no props whatever should be kicked out from under today's political insiders.
Sure, career politicians believe we should just let them go on doing all they currently do to maintain their power. But many of the rest of us just don't agree. And we're not inclined to shut up just yet.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
Listen to audio (MP3)Comments(0)
Nine hundred forty-seven dollars and 37 cents per page. I suppose you could say that's the price that Representative William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, paid for keeping bribe money in his home fridge.
The FBI found his $90,000 stash of cold, hard cash some time back, and it earned him 95 pages of a 16-count indictment from the federal government. And a great deal of notoriety.
The Washington DC Examiner looked over the indictment and used the phrase "stark venality."
And then the Examiner asks the $90,000 question: "How many more Jeffersons [are there] in Congress?"
The Examiner notes that the Jefferson case "follows hard on the heels of prison sentences handed to two of his former congressional colleagues from the Republican side of the aisle, Randy Cunningham of California and Bob Ney of Ohio." And it looks like these crooks aren't alone, since there are "ongoing FBI investigations involving" Representatives Mollohan, Calvert, Doolittle, and the infamous Senator to the Bridges to Nowhere, Ted Stevens.
How has the Congressional graft industry worked so well for so long?
The Examiner focuses at one part of the puzzle. The "favor factory" works because earmarks are still secret, despite attempts to bring them to light.
This is exactly right. But it's not the whole story, as the Examiner admits when it says that Jefferson is not accused of using earmarks in his bribe solicitations.
The real problem is that power corrupts. So we citizens must limit power.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
Comments(0)
Claire McCaskill, the freshman senator from Missouri, has (so far) risked wrath from her own party and constituency by continuing to stick to her campaign promise to oppose earmarks -- that is, federal funding for special local projects. According to the Kansas City Star, the Democratic senator "has received about 200 pleas for money from all over the state and turned down every one of them."
I say "so far" because I'm a little too familiar with politicians who go to Washington only to let the political culture change them rather than vice versa.
McCaskill's Democratic colleagues are grumbling up a storm. Missouri Congressman Emanuel Cleaver says he carefully explained to her that earmarks have helped patch roofs and fix bridges in Missouri. He says, "At some point she may have to tell her constituents that sitting on the outside, things look quite different than they do when you get inside."
"On the inside" you're an incumbent, you have political pressure. Time will tell whether McCaskill sticks to her guns. But McCaskill has supported Republican Senator Jim DeMint's new push to ensure that earmark requests be transparent, revealing the name of the sponsor and exactly where the money is going. Early moves toward such transparency in the new senate have stalled.
Eric Dixon, an editor at Missouri's Show-Me Institute, says "We should congratulate McCaskill for sticking to her principles in her fight against congressional earmarks." I agree. I'm cautiously optimistic. Very cautiously, though. Show me!
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
Comments(0)
