The Ties that Bind

Here's another argument against congressional earmarks for those who need one -- and for those who wrongly assume that the heaven-sent windfalls always benefit local beneficiaries.

The Colorado Springs City Council not long ago caught a little flak for refusing to sign-off on a letter to U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, drafted for us by city staff, seeking Lamborn's support for some Obama Administration "stimulus" measure intended to "help" local governments out. How dare we refuse a federal handout, the critics cried, when the city is weathering a fiscal storm? It amounts to looking a gift horse in the mouth.

But even a dolt by now knows that almost all federal money comes with strings firmly attached -- even those most notorious of federal "freebies," earmarks. There are times when accepting "federal money" -- which is really local money recycled -- is legitimate. But in most cases, we should look on such windfalls of printed money with a caveat emptor skepticism.

When presented with the opportunity to lunge for the loot, this city council showed wisdom by exercising discretion and saying "no thanks."

Called to Meet His Sausage-Maker

They say you shouldn't speak ill of the dead, so I'll keep this brief.

I wish I could say that the King of Pork's passing will leave the U.S. Treasury a bit more secure from congressional plundering, but Sen. Robert Byrd taught his proteges in both parties well. Don't apologize for pigging-out, he taught them -- be damn proud of it.

By helping to turn fiscal vice into political virtue, he made pork-barrel politics not just respectable, but admirable. It's a darker part of his "legacy" that our grandchildren will be paying for.

Two Paiges May Be Too Much to Handle

I was booked to be on Fox's Neil Cavuto Show today, to talk about the budget situation in Colorado Springs and the creative ways we're responding to it. But I was "bumped" from the show to make room for another guest -- some loud-mouthed chick from Washington named Leslie Paige, who will be on (at 4:00 Eastern) to talk about an annual pork barrel report called "The Pig Book."

Damn those big sisters, always trying to upstage younger brothers! But maybe one Fox show just isn't big enough to hold two Paiges.

Tune in to see Leslie at 4:00 today.

What's happening way out here in "fly-over country" will just have to wait for another day.

Born Again Pork-Buster

Barack Obama came out swinging against congressional earmarks (formerly known as pork projects) yesterday, during an appearance before a veterans group in Phoenix. It was a message custom made not just to please the vets but to boost flagging poll numbers:

“Every dollar wasted in our defense budget is a dollar we can’t spend to care for our troops, or protect America or prepare for the future,” Obama told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Phoenix. “If a project doesn’t support our troops, if it does not make America safer, we will not fund it. If a system doesn’t perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto
it.”

But the president hasn't landed a glove on Congressional earmarks in the early rounds of this bout, despite earlier vows to veto earmark-laden spending bills, and the practice of earmarking is bigger than ever in Congress, according to Washington waste-watchers, despite Speaker Pelosi's now hollow-sounding pledge to clean up Congress.

I'll believe it when I see it, in other words. And it will be interesting to see if the president's no-earmarks stance extends to the many non-military spending bills now in the works. If so, he ought to start limbering-up his veto hand now, lest a cold start lead to a repetitive motion injury later this year.

It will also be interesting to see how Obama the government waste warrior deals with another pork-related issue that made headlines yesterday -- a request from American hog farmers for a $250 million federal bailout.

"The [National Pork Producers] council wants the USDA to spend at least $150 million on pork products for various programs, including immediately buying up to $50 million of pork for federal food programs, using fiscal 2009 funds before the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30.

The USDA spent $62.6 million in 2008 buying pork for food programs, according to the council. The producers are also asking Congress to lift a spending cap that limits spending on pork for certain food programs. In addition, the council requested $100 million to help address the H1N1 virus, including $70 million for swine disease surveillance."

The report indicates that it wouldn't be the first time the feds have propped up the industry through pork buy-up programs. This crutch probably accounts for the oversupply of product, which keeps prices lower than some farmers can survive. Propping up the less-efficient producers will only forestall the day of economic reckoning that faces some hog farmers. A bailout may keep consumer prices low, at least at the meat counter, but it does so by picking the publics' pocket with another hand, in order to pay for the hog farmer handouts. The oversupply problem isn't addressed, which leads to a continuing cycle of low prices and government bailouts.

Also hurting hog farmers are "commodity costs that reached record highs last summer," according to the story, though the reporter fails to explain the federal government's role in keeping commodity costs so high. Last summer's spike in oil and gasoline prices undoubtedly played a part in this, but an equally important factor was increased demand for corn, spurred by a government-mandated ethanol craze.

Hog farmers feed their animals corn. But corn suddenly became much more expensive last year, because it was being used for motor fuel, to meet production quotas established by politicians. Ethanol also constitutes a massive rip-off of taxpayers, because we're directly subsidizing, on a per gallon basis, the production of a fuel that doesn't make economic or environmental sense -- but is popular with panacea-pushing politicians. So the hardships being visited on hog farmers are in part the result of federal efforts to benefit corn growers, via ethanol mandates. It's a case study of why government manipulations of the market, through subsidies and mandates, almost always leads to a cascading series of new problems.

Obama can't begin to trim the deficit or debt without at some point saying "no" not just to earmarks, but to the pleading classes that step forward almost daily, asking for a handout. But that's incredibly hard to do when you've already offered direct or indirect bailouts to every conceivable American industry that asked for one.

How can Obama say "no" to hog farmers, when he's already lavished federal money on bankers, brokerage houses and automakers, and when he's spending wildly in a scatter shot approach to economic stimulus? How can he say "no" to legislative branch pork, even while doling out executive branch pork to every wheel that starts squeaking -- or squealing, in the case of pig farmers?

It won't be easy; that's the short answer. But it's the ultimate test of whether this president will ever get a handle on runaway spending.

Will Salazar's Home Turf Get Some Solar-Powered Pork?

Southern Colorado's San Luis Valley seems like a suitable spot for solar power facilities. It's sunny most days. It's flat. It's relatively uncrowded. The federal government has some significant land holdings there. Thus, it makes sense that the valley would be among the locales the Interior Department is considering for the fast-tracking of such projects, as was reported in today's Denver Business Journal.

But the San Luis Valley also happens to be the home turf of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a former attorney general and senator from Colorado. His family owns land there. It's part of his brother's congressional district. And the economy isn't exactly booming. This raises the possibility that the valley could get an unfair leg up on the competition -- if it hasn't gotten one already -- should Salazar decide to toss it a little solar power pork.

That means Interior had better be very scrupulous and transparent about how these siting decisions are made, and permits are handed out, lest it appear that Salazar is using his office to do special favors for the home crowd.

The Western landscape seems ideally suited for such projects. There's still plenty of space; federal holdings are vast; and most states in the region, including Colorado, are falling all over themselves trying to jump on the "clean energy" bandwagon. But the prospect that this process will devolve into just another pork-barrel pig out seems real enough, seeing as how Salazar made this announcement while standing beside Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who will undoubtedly be pulling strings to see that Nevada lands "its fair share" (and then some) of the projects.

Members of the legislative branch are justifiable renowned for "earmarking" federal dollars for pet projects. But high-ranking members of the executive branch are well-positioned to do the same, if they have the opportunity and inclination. I wouldn't mind seeing the San Luis Valley get in on the action, if the process is honest. But the process will have to be watched closely to ensure that's the case.

Innovations in Earmarking

U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, Democrat from Washington State, is taking a novel approach to plundering the U.S. Treasury, which might be called "do-it-yourself earmarking." It's a way of cutting out the middle man in the pork-barrel process -- your local member of Congress -- by letting Americans go directly to appropriators with their earmark wish-lists. Just file a funding request, hoist it up the flag pole and voilà: In a few short months it might just start raining money!

No need to hire an expensive lobbyist. No need for quid-pro-quo campaign contributions. It's Uncle Sam as ATM -- only you don't need a secret pin number to make a withdrawal. And the best part is, it gives members of Congress "plausible deniability" if embarrassing pork barrel projects make the papers. It's no longer their request; it's your request. Don't blame the messenger; all they were doing was passing it along to the right people.

This latest innovation in earmarking came to light a few days back, after The Seattle Times reported that McDermott was seeking a $250,000 federal earmark for the replacement of window sills at The Rainier Club, an exclusive private dinner club in Seattle. That's when the 11-termer conjured up the following defense. He really didn't think the funding request would go through, he told The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, but he made it anyway, because some folks in the district asked him to.

"Everybody in my district is entitled to make a request," he said. "I will let the (appropriations) committee with the responsibility make the decision." And whatever committee members decide on the matter is just fine with McDermott, apparently.

So there it is, folks. Everyone in McDermott's district is "entitled" to request an earmark. You are. So's your neighbor. So are the folks who run the supper club. It's a free-for all, in other words; he has no responsibility for screening the requests, or modifying them, or rejecting those (like this one) that are too trivial and parochial to justify the use of federal funds.

And he wants us to believe he trusts wiser minds on the appropriations committee to make such calls. "The congressman argued that his colleagues controlling the purse strings sort through requested earmarks, usually funding things deemed most important," reports the P-I.

A McDermott staffer scoffed at any suggestion that the Rainier Club earmark was a favor to fat cats. "People who know Jim well . . . would chuckle out loud if the implication is that he's in the pocket of business interests," he told the Times. But this misses the point. The problem isn't that McDermott is "in the pocket of business interests," but that he's in the pocket of taxpayers, at the behest of an elite private club that should pay for its own damn window repairs. The problem is that such outrages have become routine in the era of do-it-yourself earmarking.

Scent of Scandal has Udall Scrambling

Does Senator Mark Udall read The American Contrarian?

One almost might think so, judging from the way the freshman senator is hurriedly distancing himself from the practice of earmarking, in the wake of this blog's connecting of dots between him and the next big lobbying scandal brewing in Washington, focused on the currently-under-investigation PMA Group. The firm has strong ties to Democrats, especially Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha -- one of the House's most prodigious porkers -- but it spread money around to Republicans as well (including local Rep. Doug Lamborn).

Most politicians with ties to the group have been scrambling to scrub off the taint.

As I first reported here Feb. 22, Udall's name appeared on a list of members of Congress who received contributions from the now-shuttered lobbying shop, and also sponsored earmarks that benefited PMA clients. And it wasn't the first time Udall's name has come up in a pork for pay context, as I pointed out in a Feb 24 post.

These revelations generated some buzz around the Colorado blogosphere, but never made the leap over to the MSM in Colorado. Other politicians' links to PMA have been news elsewhere, however. Illinois Rep. Peter Visclosky has disowned political contributions he received from the group, as have Florida Sen. Ben Nelson, who donated his PMA contributions to charity, and Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio.

Udall hasn't disavowed his contributions from PMA, as far as I know -- probably because Colorado's MSM has been so slow to pick up on the story. But he is making efforts to inoculate himself against potential political damage, and distance himself from the practice of earmarking, by vowing to go on a low pork diet.

Reported Thursday's Longmont Times-Call:

Udall puts restrictions on earmark requests

U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, will no longer accept private corporations’ and other non-government groups’ requests for earmarks in federal appropriations bills, his staff announced Wednesday.

Udall’s policy will now be to consider only those funding requests proposed by public entities in Colorado seeking federal funding, his staff said.

Udall’s staff said he’ll still encourage Colorado’s cities, counties, colleges and universities, special districts and water conservancy districts, for example, to submit proposals for possible inclusion in congressional appropriations bills.

“I believe that the appropriations process is largely broken and subject to abuse,” Udall said in a statement.

Udall and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Denver, both voted Tuesday to advance the $410 billion spending package that President Barack Obama signed into law Wednesday.

Last year, when he was a congressman, Udall imposed a one-year moratorium on his own earmark requests. The bill signed Wednesday didn’t include any earmarks from either him or Bennet.

Udall said Wednesday that “political contributions from people or companies requesting earmarks can taint the legislative process.

“Government entities, however, are not allowed to make political donations, and government entities and officials are directly accountable to Coloradans, unlike private sector entities,” Udall added.

“On balance, it seems fair under current circumstances to appropriately fund Colorado government entities and thus directly help the people of Colorado,” Udall said.

The last thing a rising political star needs is to have his name connected to scandal. Look what the Keating 5 affair did to an up-and-coming young senator named John McCain. The Hill reports that PMA already is shaping up as potent campaign issue in 2010.

Udall obviously has been a part of the broken and abused appropriations process he now decries. His ties to the PMA Group, and links to the pork-for-pay game, make that clear. Just as John McCain became a good government gadfly after narrowly surviving the Keating 5 affair, perhaps Udall's connection to PMA is leading to this anti-earmark conversion.

But before Udall can earn redemption, he has to come clean. His new attitude toward earmarks is laudable, but he still owes Coloradans a complete explanation of his ties to PMA. And he needs to donate those tainted PMA campaign contributions to a good cause.

Just as a postscript: The House of Representatives on Feb. 24 voted down a resolution calling for an Ethics Committee probe of the PMA-pork connection. Presiding during the vote was Penn. Rep. Time Holden, a Democrat, who received more than $57,000 in campaign contributions from PMA’s political action committee from 2001 to 2008.

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.

Federal Agencies will Fatten-up on "Stimulus Package" Pork

The "economic stimulus package" Democrats are streamrolling through Congress, in a rush to make a rendezvous with Barack Obama on one of his first days in office, evidently will also serve as a stealth federal spending bill, with tens of billions of dollars going to fatten the coffers of federal agencies. GovExec.com dug into the bill and produced the following list of agency goodies, all tucked neatly away inside -- expenditures that should be funded as part of the normal budgeting and appropriations process.

President-elect Obama vowed that this would be an earmark-free bill, understanding that Americans would be even more repulsed by the glut of spending if members of Congress began piling their pet projects even higher on the gravy train. There are many definitions of "pork," however, and many different ways to serve it up. And this certainly has that tell-tale aroma.

Here's the report from GovExec.com. Read it and weep.

Stimulus package contains billions of dollars for federal agencies

By Katherine McIntire Peters kpeters@govexec.com
January 15, 2009

Federal agencies stand to gain billions of dollars in funds if the economic stimulus package under consideration in Congress becomes law.

According to a summary of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill released on Thursday by the House Appropriations Committee, agencies would receive billions to repair and rebuild infrastructure, upgrade computer systems, repair environmental damage and improve energy efficiency. Billions more would be funneled through agencies to states and local governments in the form of grants. The following federal agencies would receive funds to directly enhance their facilities and operations:

Agriculture Department

$650 million for construction and improvements at National Forest Service facilities
$209 million for deferred maintenance at Agricultural Research Service facilities
$245 million to critical information technology improvements at the Farm Service Agency
$44 million to repair and improve security at USDA headquarters
$300 million for fire hazard reduction
$400 million for watershed improvement programs at the Natural Resources Conservation Service

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

$426 million to complete the agency's buildings and facilities master plan, and to renovate the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health offices

Defense Department

$350 million for research into using renewable energy to power weapons systems and military bases
$3.75 billion for new construction of hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers
$455 million in renovations to medical facilities
$2.1 billion for repairs to military facilities
$1.2 billion for new housing construction
$154 million to improve troop housing
$360 million for new child development centers
$400 million for new construction to support Guard and Reserve units
$4.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers for environmental restoration, flood protection, hydropower and navigation infrastructure (the committee noted the Corps' construction backlog is $61 billion)
$300 million to clean up closed military installations

Energy Department

$1.9 billion for basic research
$400 million for the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy
$500 million for nuclear waste cleanup

Environmental Protection Agency

$800 million for hazardous waste cleanup at Superfund sites
$200 million to clean up leaking underground storage tanks
$100 million for competitive grants to clean up former industrial sites known as brownfields

General Services Administration

$6.7 billion for renovations and repairs to federal buildings, including at least $6 billion focused on increasing energy efficiency and conservation
$600 million to replace older vehicles with alternative-fuel vehicles

Health and Human Services Department

$900 million to prepare for pandemic flu, support medical countermeasures for weapons of mass destruction and cybersecurity

Homeland Security Department

$500 million for the Transportation Security Administration to install aviation explosive detection systems at airports
$150 million for the Coast Guard to repair or remove bridges deemed hazardous to marine navigation
$1.5 billion to construct GSA and Customs and Border Patrol land ports of entry to improve security and commerce

Housing and Urban Development Department

$2.5 billion for a new program to upgrade low-income housing to increase energy efficiency

Interior Department

$1.8 billion for the National Park Service for infrastructure projects
$325 million for the Bureau of Land Management for infrastructure projects
$300 million for the National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries
$400 million to address deterioration of the National Mall
$500 million to the Bureau of Reclamation to provide clean drinking water to rural areas (the committee noted the bureau has a backlog of more than $1 billion in rural water projects)
$500 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to address maintenance backlogs at schools, dams, detention and law enforcement facilities, and roads (the committee noted the bureau has a maintenance backlog at schools alone exceeding $1 billion)
$550 million to modernize facilities at the Indian Health Service

NASA

$600 million, including $400 million to put more scientists to work on climate change research, $150 million for research to improve aviation safety and Next-Generation air traffic control, and $50 million to repair NASA centers damaged by hurricanes and floods last year

National Institutes of Health

$2 billion, including $1.5 billion for expanding jobs in biomedical research and $500 million to implement the repair and improvement strategic plan developed for NIH campuses
$1.5 billion for NIH to renovate university research facilities

National Institutes of Standards and Technology

$300 million for competitive construction grants for research buildings at colleges and other organizations, and $100 million to coordinate research at labs and national research facilities by setting interoperability standards for manufacturing

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

$600 million for satellite development and acquisitions
$400 million for habitat restoration projects

National Science Foundation

$3 billion, including $2 billion for expanding employment opportunities in science and engineering to meet environmental challenges and improve economic competitiveness, $400 million to build major research facilities, $300 million for equipment, $200 million to repair and modernize facilities, and $100 million to improve instruction in science, math and engineering

Social Security Administration

$400 million to replace the 30-year-old National Computer Center
$500 million to process a steep rise in disability and retirement claims

State Department

$276 million to upgrade information technology platforms

U.S. Geological Survey

$200 million to repair and modernize science facilities and equipment

Veterans Affairs

$950 million for medical facilities (the committee noted there is a $5 billion maintenance backlog at the agency's 153 facilities)
$50 million to make monument and memorial repairs at veterans cemeteries

Prince of Pork Dethroned by Earl of Earmarks

First the good news: 90-year-old West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd has been ousted from the chairmanship of the all-powerful Senate Appropriations committee, which gave him his own set of keys to the U.S. Treasury. Now the bad news: Byrd will be replaced by another geriatric, 84-year-old Hawaii Sen. Dan Inouye, whose been a worthy understudy in the art of pork-barrel pillaging.

Little changes, in short, except for matters of style. "Rather than give big speeches on the Senate floor or in committee hearings like his predecessor, the senior Hawaiian senator will strike a lot more deals in the backrooms," reports The Hill. And I'm not sure that's an improvement.

At least with Byrd, who fancies himself a historian, the banditry was accompanied by rambling, 10-hour discourses on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire (with the part about bread and circuses adroitly sanitized, lest the audience see any parallels). Inouye, though an old-school senator and a gentlemen, doesn't even bother entertaining you while he's picking your pockets.

Seattle Times Squeals on the Squealers

The Seattle Times on Sunday rolled out a pretty damning expose of Congress's continuing appetite for pork, suggesting that the earmarking epidemic goes on, despite vows of reform and transparency. Here’s a link to the stories, which the paper packaged together as a feature called "The Favor Factory 2008."

This is all just an appetizer, keep in mind. These earmarks come from just one bill, which funds the Pentagon in Fiscal 2009. That was the only place the paper could go, though, since Congress -- derelict in its duties as usual -- failed to pass most other spending bills this year. The Times also provides readers with a database, itemizing the defense earmarks and campaign contributions for each member. That leaves us to judge whether these earmarks seem legitimate (though the project descriptions can be maddeningly vague), and to draw our own conclusions about whether there appear to be quid pro quos between earmarks and donations.

It's a nifty piece of investigative journalism, that provides a wealth of possible story angles, and research opportunities, for local reporters and curious constituents alike, if they take the time to connect the dots. Kudos to The Seattle Times for putting it all together.

Here are links to earmark/campaign donor lists of particular interest to local readers.

U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn: earmark list.

Sen. Wayne Allard: earmark list.

Sen. Ken Salazar: earmark list.

U.S. Rep. John Salazar: earmark list.

U.S. Rep. Mark Udall: earmark list.

It's always tempting, when looking at home state pork, to let narrow self-interest cloud our judgment about the propriety of such expenditures. Since state or local institutions may benefit, we have a tendency to be more forgiving of "our" earmarks than we are of those that go elsewhere. This cognitive dissonance is perfectly captured in this editorial from the Port Huron Times Herald, which decries earmarking as "reprehensible" -- except when it benefits Michigan. And this is one reason why members of Congress rarely pay a political price for their plundering.

One way to get a more objective perspective is to ask yourself whether you would consider this a good and legitimate use of federal money -- of your money -- if it were going to some other state or congressional district. If you wouldn't be happy paying for such a project in Peoria, you shouldn't ask people in Peoria to pay for one here.

A Tale Half Told

I haven't read this book. And based on this review, and what I know of the author's previous work, and my years living and working in the city about which he writes, I probably won't.

It's not because he blames Republicans -- the "wrecking crew" of the book's title -- for everything that's screwed up and corrupt in the capital city's political culture. As the party largely in charge since 1994, Republicans certainly deserve plenty of blame, not just for falling prey to the city's many temptations but for abandoning what ideals they once had. And they'll face a well-deserved reckoning for that in just a few short months, when the Democrats take control of the White House.

No one's rougher on the party than those of us who at one time labored in the GOP vineyards, only to see the fruits of those labors turn sour. But I also lived in Washington long enough, and followed goings on there closely enough before plunging in myself, to put the issue into the context this book obviously lacks. All the corruptions the author decries or could decry -- fiscal irresponsibility, lobbyists, earmarks, abuses of office, patronage-building -- were pioneered (and in some cases perfected) by Democrats when they ran the show. Has the author so quickly forgotten names like Tony Coelho, Dan Rostenkowski and Jim Wright, to name just a few?

Republicans simply took things to the next level. And if the author imagines these things will vanish when Democrats are again completely in charge, he's imagining things. Has earmarking ended since Democrats regained control of Congress, promising to clean things up? Have lobbyists packed their bags and left town? Is Congress run by a bunch of rabidly partisan politicos, who will bend and break procedural rules, and throw basic fairness out a second story window, to get what they want? The correct answers are no, no and yes.

And none of this will change as long as so much power, money and regulatory clout remains centered in Washington. The corrupting influence of so much centralized power will eventually take root in whichever party is in charge at the moment. It was there before the Republican "revolution." It will continue during the Democratic "devolution" ahead. But will the author, 8 or 10 years hence, be penning "The Wrecking Crew Revisited"? Don't bet on it. His sort of "muckraking" conveniently ignores both sides of the pig sty.

The author takes shots at libertarians in the book, according to this review, but libertarians at least recognize that the only way to end power's corrupting influence in Washington is for states and people to take their power back, by returning to the limited government ideals the founders espoused. Liberals, like the author, fail to grasp that their own support for big government -- their Statolatry, as Von Mises called it -- creates the optimum conditions for abuses of power and corruption to flourish.

American Contrarian adapted for The Rocky

A piece of mine appeared in Saturday’s Rocky Mountain News, which was a slightly refined version of something I posted on The American Contrarian a few weeks back (just in case my army of loyal readers missed it). I thank the good folks at the Rocky's editorial page for running it. Neither my original post here, nor the Rocky version, included several key sentences I wanted tacked on to the end, however. They should read as follows:

“No major rules changes or legislative actions are needed to permanently
end the earmarking epidemic. Members of Congress merely need to make a pledge,
individually and collectively, to strictly follow existing budget rules and stop
taking self-serving shortcuts.”

Profiles in porkage

Three news stories, appearing in different parts of the country on the same day, put a human face on the congressional earmarking issue. It’s not a pretty face, to be sure; but a face all the same.

One story profiles a longtime member of Congress who is damn proud of his ability to “bring home the bacon.” He even seems to have kept a tally of his raids on the treasury and brags of personally delivering $7 billion in pork to the district – that’s illion with a capital B, he says. And his constituents evidently loved him for it, given his long tenure. Meet retired Rep. Ken Gray: http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080609/NEWS01/806090344/1006. Here’s a key quote. "If building hospitals, nursing homes and highways is pork, then I say pass the plate," Gray said, laughing. "Anybody who tells you that the greatest beneficiary of a pork barrel is the provider of the pork is wrong."

Perhaps I’m not alone in being thankful this guy retired.

The second story profiles what might be called the reluctant porker; a member of Congress who claims to oppose most earmarking on principle, recognizing that it’s a corruption of the budget process, but who indulges nonetheless, because he is a practical person. As long as everyone else is doing it, he figures, why shouldn’t I dunk my biscuit in the gravy bowl too? Meet New Jersey Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo: http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080609/NEWS01/806090344/1006. Here’s a key quote: "I don't believe the people that I represent should be unfairly disadvantaged by my self-imposing a moratorium when everybody else will be advocating on behalf of their constituents," says LoBiondo, who hastens to add that every earmark he sponsors is carefully vetted. Vetted by whom? LoBiondo and his staff, of course.

Finally, you have the relatively rare member of Congress who finds the feeding frenzy repugnant and declines to participate, hoping his constituents will reward him for his fiscal restraint. He may manage to stay in office, but most colleagues give him a wide berth in the cloakroom and at cocktail parties; sort of like the one clean cop in a dirty precinct. Meet California Rep. Devi Nunes: http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/654409.html. Here’s a key quote: "Earmark decisions are made in smoke-filled rooms by out-of-touch people who have a record of making poor decisions," Nunes said. "The process has enabled corrupt politicians to exploit their offices and is largely based on political patronage." Naturally, this sort of talk, though it has the ring of truth to it, doesn’t make Nunes popular with colleagues. Some suggest he’s even been targeted for retaliation, after crossing swords on a fiscal issue with Rep Jerry Lewis, a prodigious porker who chaired the House Appropriations Committee.

There you have it. Three different members of Congress, three different attitudes toward earmarking. And each tailors his position to fit a constituency.

Some Americans expect their congressperson to plunder at will. They seem driven by a sense of entitlement to get “their fair share” -- though it’s frequently much more than their fair share. Other Americans, though they understand earmarking is wasteful, corrupting and contributes to budget deficits, are pragmatists, who feel (with some justification) they’ll be taken advantage of by the plunderers if their man or woman in Congress doesn’t play the game.

Still others – a decided minority, in seems -- make the connection between high taxes, runaway spending and the total lack of fiscal discipline earmarking bespeaks. This latter group hopes, perhaps forlornly, that a modicum of fiscal discipline might be restored if their representative in Washington, while looking out for their legitimate interests, refrains from trying to bribe them with their own money -- which is what the earmarking racket amounts to.

Which mindset prevails will largely determine whether Congress ever kicks the earmarking habit.

Why most congressional earmarking reforms just won't work

Years ago, when I was handling media relations for Citizens Against Government Waste, it was believed that if you shined a bright enough light on the practice of congressional earmarking, and you shamed members of Congress who conducted these personal raids on the U.S. Treasury, you could help clean-up the budget mess. That belief was rather naïve, I now realize.

The theory falls apart because you can’t shame the shameless. And that’s why the vaunted earmark reforms we’ve been hearing and reading about, at least since the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal increased public awareness of the issue, will fail to deliver significant results. Though beneficial, the new disclosure rules being debated by the House and Senate won’t do much good because members, masterful spinners that they are, have succeeded in turning fiscal vice into political virtue. Nothing will change until the American people begin to see the issue clearly and consistently – and until they stop serving as accomplices.

I keep seeing media references to the “public outrage” earmarks supposedly evoke. Where is it? The most notorious pork-barrel practitioners in Congress are routinely and reflexively re-elected (it’s that longevity, in fact, that’s given them a front row seat at the trough). Most are lionized by their constituents for their ability to “bring home the bacon.” I used to read the newspaper clips that came in after our annual release of the Pig Book, a report designed to shame politicians and educate the public. Far from outrage, most of the home state reaction could be summed up as follows: “If this is pork, we want another heaping helping!”

I began to recognize that many Americans were indignant about the obviously-parochial, arguably-idiotic pet projects landed by other members of Congress, but saw similar projects scored by their own Congressperson as legitimate federal expenditures, not to mention just desserts. The report provoked rationalizing en masse. I never saw a member of Congress pay any political price for pigging out.

Back then, a few members of Congress bristled at being called out as porkers. But as years went by, I sensed that some members actually relished the Pig Book’s release, understanding that they and their constituents could take a certain pride in their pork barrel tally, since it served as one tangible measure of political clout. The sanguine editorial reactions, along with the willingness of constituents to justify their own representative’s raid on the Treasury, removed whatever stigma once attached to pork-barrel plundering. And it became a perverse point of pride. Until this changes, little else will.

Here’s my thumbnail reaction to the “reforms” being debated by Congress.

One provision in the House bill “requires any bill containing earmarks be accompanied by a list identifying each one and the member or members who requested it,” according to the AP. I just explained why that’s ineffectual. Creating such a list merely reduces the work load for Congressional press secretaries, who are spared the need to crank out the customary press releases bragging about how their bosses “brought home” this or that federal spending project.

Another provision requires the member who requests an earmark “to provide a letter identifying the earmark and the entity to receive the funds, along with a certification that neither the requesting member nor their spouse would benefit financially,” report the AP. Disclosure of financial conflicts could be useful, only if serious, perhaps even criminal sanctions result from failing to disclose. Referring such matters to the ethics committee will not serve as a deterrent. The most corrupt members of Congress may seek some direct financial gain from earmarks, but most are content to reap the real but far less visible rewards, including the gratitude of voters and patronage ties such projects generate. That's critical to the incumbency protection racket. Lining their pockets is less important to most members than remaining a lifetime member of this prestigious club. There's plenty of opportunity for cashing-in after retirement.

Another rule change would prohibit earmarks “from being used to influence other members,” according to the AP. But policing this would be nearly impossible. The congressional pecking order is obvious enough to most insiders, and so much of the institution’s business transpires behind closed doors, that overt acts of intimidation (or pork-barrel bribery) are rarely evident. Junior members don’t have to be told what might happen if they cross senior members -- who also happen to control appropriations committees. Catching one member in the act of influencing another, using earmarks as leverage, isn’t as easy as it sounds in an institution where influencing colleagues is a legitimate part of the game. And without adequate enforcement mechanisms, this won’t have much impact.

The only reform worthy of the name -- a proposed moratorium on earmarks until a bipartisan committee proposes new rules changes -- fell along the wayside late last week, regrettably. This isn’t the solution, of course, since the study committee, if it simply mirrors Congress at large, is likely to produce recommendations just as anemic as those critiqued here. But a moratorium, if it stuck, would at least grant taxpayers a temporary reprieve. And if the committee’s work, staying true to congressional form, took one, two or three years to complete, that would save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in unnecessary, frivolous and wasteful government spending.

Given how endemic earmarking has become, and how hard it will be to change that as long as average Americans remain complicit in the corruption, even a temporary timeout is probably the best we can hope for.