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.
Showing posts with label pork-barrel politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pork-barrel politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)