They Shoot Horses Don't They?

Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet reportedly fear that some important items for Colorado will fall along the wayside if the lame duck Congress fails to pass an omnibus, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink public lands bill by the time it adjourns. But I say let the lame duck session, and everything left unfinished, die, since little good can come from this sort of 11th-hour sausage-making. They shoot horses, don't they?

Most Americans still don't have a clue what was in the last catch-all public lands monstrosity, rammed through in early 2009 in similarly-rushed circumstances. That "omnibus" was a dumping ground for 160 bills that couldn't find any other way of garnering majority support. And here we are, less than 2 years later, engaged in the same tawdry exercise. The only reason Congress can get away with it is that this really is (what Gore Vidal called) The United States of Amnesia.

If the items Udall and Bennet seek have enough merit to win a majority the honest way -- and some might -- the senators should have a very good chance of reviving them in the next Congress. If the only way to pass good bills is to package them with bad ones, the system really is broken.

It's time to treat this lame duck just as we treat lame horses, by putting it out of its misery, before it can do any more harm. If these items have to die with it, so be it.

Loose Lips Sink Ships

We're assured by U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn that the possible addition of a new aviation brigade at Fort Carson isn't in any way contingent on the future expansion of the Pinon Canyon training area -- at least that's the official line coming from the Pentagon. But one can't help wonder, and worry a little, about whether the anti-Army venom that has come to taint so much of the rhetoric from expansion opponents won't in this case come back to haunt Colorado.

I'm not sure how much controversy relocation of the brigade will stir in Tacoma, Washington, where Joint Base Lewis-McChord is also in the running to serve as host. I'm betting an influx of nearly 3,000 new soldiers will be met with cheers, parades and keys to the city. But here in southern Colorado, the polarizing nature of the Pinon Canyon debate, and the increasingly anti-Army tone it has assumed, could tilt the competition in Tacoma's favor.

No one at the Pentagon will say this. If Joint Base Lewis-McChord wins the competition, it will do so based strictly on the merits, or so military officials will tell us. But you can bet that what's been going on out here -- including local opposition to the brigade from Colorado Springs peace activists -- hasn't gone unnoticed in Washington. Some military brass undoubtedly are wondering how once-welcoming Southern Colorado became such hostile territory. Such noisy opposition, even if it's the minority view, can't help but raise yellow flags, which will only increase our vulnerability when the next round of base closures and realignments comes along.

If you were making the call, and everything else was equal, wouldn't you send the soldiers where you know they'll be unconditionally welcomed? Why would you send more soldiers to a training facility of limited future utility?

Of course, not everyone who's anti-expansion is anti-Army. But the willingness of certain leaders to tolerate (and pander to) the increasingly-militant, anti-Army rhetoric of Pinon Canyon protesters isn't improving Fort Carson's chances of landing the new brigade. Our cause isn't helped by the fact that so many of Colorado's senior leaders (including Senators Udall and Bennet and U.S. Rep. John Salazar) have closed minds concerning Pinon Canyon expansion. It's a reminder of how irresponsible and reckless rhetoric, employed for short-term political gain, can do real and lasting harm.

Playing Water Politics a Hard Habit to Kick

The water war between Pueblo and Colorado Springs has for years been a reliable vote-getter for Democrats, so some of them actually seem a little disappointed that the hostilities might be coming to an end. While the two cities finally seem on the verge of working things out, on the Southern Delivery System pipeline project and related issues, certain politicians seem inclined to keep stirring the pot, perhaps for fear of losing an issue they've exploited for votes.

What has SDS to do with partisan politics? Could politicians really be so cynical and self-serving? Answering the first question requires a bit of context. The answer to the second question would seem self evident.

Here's the context.

Pueblo has a lot of registered Democrats, and a powerhouse little newspaper, The Chieftain, that's done everything in its power to delay and derail the pipeline, by portraying Colorado Springs as an 800-pound gorilla taking advantage of the rest of the Arkansas Valley. And because Colorado Springs and El Paso County are heavily Republican in their voting habits, Democrats -- from Ken Salazar to John Salazar to Mark Udall -- have learned that they have little to lose and much to gain (including the endorsement of The Pueblo Chieftain) by playing to Pueblo's sense of victimization.

Some readers may recall that it was former Attorney General Ken Salazar, a Democrat -- and the current Secretary of Interior -- who first encouraged Pueblo County to use regulatory mechanisms (including so-called 1041 rules) to impede the pipeline. His brother, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, has incorporated Springs-bashing themes in the mailers he sends to Arkansas Valley constituents. And freshman Sen. Mark Udall also has played the issue for votes, by posing as the protector of Pueblo and the lower Ark against big, bad Colorado Springs.

All three men understood that they could secure the political support of The Chieftain, and gain whatever additional Pueblo votes that might bring, by playing one community off against the other. Instead of helping mend fences, they used their positions to help build them higher. And now, when a series of recent developments suggest that an end to the water war might be near, John Salazar and Mark Udall seem reluctant to embrace the good news and move ahead.

They don't call it "water politics" for nothing.

Pork for Pay, Part 2

As noted here Sunday, Colorado Sen. Mark Udall and U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn have both been linked to the latest pork-for-pay scandal in Washington, appearing on a list of members who received campaign contributions from the powerhouse lobbying shop PMA Group, which shut down recently after being raided by the feds, and also backed earmarks for PMA clients.

Neither man ranks high on the list, which could serve as a Who’s Who of Congress’s most notorious pork-barrel practitioners: Udall is credited with securing $2 million in earmarks for PMA clients and receiving $6,533 in campaign contributions from PMA since 2001, while Lamborn is listed as having secured $1 million in earmarks for PMA clients and having received $1,000 in donations. But their presence there, and connection to the next big lobbying scandal in Washington, demonstrates how pervasive, and bipartisan, the earmarking racket has become.

How their involvement might be received by fiscally-conservative constituents back home is unknown, since the Colorado media has yet to report on the matter.

It’s not the first time the two have been linked to pork-for-pay, however. The Seattle Times, in some first-rate investigative reporting done last October, also attempted to connect the dots between earmarks members inserted into a Fiscal 2009 defense spending bill and donations they received from earmark beneficiaries. A searchable database compiled as part of the investigation includes this page for Lamborn and this page for Udall, which seem to bolster the case for pork-for-pay quid pro quos.

Lamborn is credited by the Times with getting $7 million in earmarks inserted into the bill, while receiving nearly $40,000 ($39,797) in campaign donations from beneficiaries. Udall is shown as backing $11.4 million in earmarks, while receiving more than $100,000 ($101,522) in donations from beneficiaries. The Times scrubbed only one major spending bill, but similar links between earmarks and campaign donations could undoubtedly be found in every major spending bill passed by Congress.

The Jack Abramoff scandal helped shine needed light on this scandal, and Democrats won a majority promising to clean up an ethics mess they laid at the feet of Republicans. The PMA scandal threatens to do to Democrats what the Abramoff affair did to Republicans.

The House is expected to decide today “whether to start an ethics investigation into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions,” reports CQ Politics: “The vote could put majority Democrats and at least a few Republicans in an uncomfortable spot. They will have to choose between authorizing the House ethics committee to investigate the most delicate of political relationships or publicly voting against such a probe.”

The member pushing the ethics inquiry is Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake, who’s been fighting an often lonely, largely futile battle to curtail congressional earmarking. Flake had this to say on the subject in a New York Times op-ed appearing yesterday.

“But nothing has illustrated the insidious nature of Congressional pay-to-play better than the PMA Group, a powerhouse lobbying firm that imploded this month after word got out that it was being investigated over campaign contribution indiscretions. Over the past few days we’ve learned that PMA’s clients received nearly $300 million worth of earmarks in one defense appropriations bill. In what is best described as circular fund-raising, millions of those dollars made a return trip to Capitol Hill in the form of contributions to members of Congress.

The 2009 defense appropriations bill, approved last September, contained more than 1,000 House earmarks, dozens of which were for PMA clients. There was no full committee “markup” where such links could be examined, nor were challenges to the earmarks allowed on the House floor. Further, unless it’s been hurriedly scrubbed by an alert staff member, the omnibus appropriations bill scheduled for debate this week includes many earmarks for PMA clients.

Congress has managed to avoid connecting the pay-to-play dots by looking the other way. This has been easy to do. House rules require members submitting earmark requests to certify that they have no “financial interest” in doing so. But the House ethics manual states: “A contribution to a member’s principal campaign committee or leadership PAC generally would not constitute the type of ‘financial interest’ referred to in the rule.”


Now, thanks to Rod Blagojevich and the PMA Group, perhaps the days of whistling past the Justice Department are behind us. If we think we can rely on Ethics Committee guidelines written by our colleagues to shield us from corruption investigations, we are drinking our own bathwater. We have little choice but to decouple earmarks from campaign contributions. This can be most easily done by clarifying that campaign contributions do in fact constitute “financial interest.” I’ve introduced a House resolution to do just that.”

No matter whether the ethics investigation moves forward, or how it is resolved, constituents and voters will most likely serve as the final arbiters of whether this sort of activity is something they'll tolerate from their representatives in Washington. But that requires that they demand a full explanation from Lamborn, Udall and any others in the Colorado delegation that are linked to pork for pay.