MY MONEY!!! MY MONEY !!!

This video is from an E-mail from Pat Toomey, President of Club for Growth that Debbie from Right Truth passed along. It shows two things. 1) Rep. Don Young, (R-AK) in full meltdown on the floor of the House and 2) in barely 3 minutes shows how insidious the problem of pork barrel spending is than I could hope to in 3 years of blogging.


There is more from that e-mail later in this post including a great speech by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ). Learn more about the dust up between Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Nelson’s $7.5 million earmark for a company his son works for. BTW, the company gets 80% of its revenues from government grants. There is more about Rep. Jack Murtha’s latest pork projects, $7.5 billion in unclaimed Senate earmarks in the 10 appropriations bills currently being hashed out and Citizens Against Government Waste provides details about the Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act. READ MORE

Shared with all my friends Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

This report by William La Jeunesse of Fox News explains the controversy behind the dust up between Sens. Coburn and Nelson over the latter’s $7.5 million earmark for 21st Century Systems, Inc.

Coburn claims the Pentagon has not ordered any of 21 CSI's technology through the normal budgeting process, and military officials told Coburn it did not ask for and does not need the program. Instead, friends in Congress got the money for 21CSI outside the competitive process through earmarks.

From Bill Allison’s Blog over at the Sunlight Foundation, there seems to be some “Back Sliding on Earmark Reform” which also touches on Sen. Nelson’s $7.5 million for his sons company.

Phil Kerpen’s Blog over at the Americans for Prosperity points two more outrageous Earmarks by Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA)for a Department of Energy project in his district DOE says it doesn’t want and
$300,000 for the Belmont Center, a swimming and ice-skating center.

“The earmark is supposedly to improve handicapped access. Yet I already see a big wheelchair ramp in the picture on the web site, and I'm not sure any amount of federal dollars will make it practical for handicapped people to go ice-skating, but I'm no expert.”

Manu Raju of The Hill reports http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/7.5b-earmarks-unclaimed-2007-07-17.html that there are $7.5 billion in unclaimed Senate Earmarks according to analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today released a list of the most egregious pork-barrel projects in the House version of the Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act. The cost of the 1,305 projects is a whopping $277.9 million. Both sides of the aisle stuck their greedy hands into the Labor/HSS Education pot to bring home cash to their districts.

You can read details here.

And last but not least from the E-mail from Pat Toomey, President of Club for Growth that Debbie from Right Truth passed along.

Below is a wondeful speech that Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) recently gave on the House floor about earmark reform. On the same day as that speech, Flake offered an amendment to defund a mysterious pork project in an appropriations bill. Flake's office couldn't even confirm that the earmark's recipient existed! Worse still, the subcommittee chairman in charge of the bill couldn't confirm it either. In the end, the House voted to support the project, even without confirmation. Watch this video to witness the whole debate.

Speech by Jeff Flake on the U.S. House floor on Tuesday, July 17, 2007.
"Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of concern for what earmarks are doing to this body. Those of us on the Republican side understand very well the political perils of this practice. Unfettered earmarking, and the corruption that accompanies it, was a major factor in putting us right where we are today: squarely in the minority.
"But there are greater concerns than which party is in the majority. I would hope that all of us, Republicans and Democrats, would be concerned about what earmarks are doing to the practice of authorization, appropriation, and oversight that has been the hallmark of this institution for more than two centuries.
"Proponents of earmarking defend the practice by noting that Article One of the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and that earmarking is consistent with that responsibility. It is true that Congress has the power of the purse. But the contemporary practice of earmarking circumvents, rather than enhances, the careful execution of our responsibility as stewards of public funds.
"Take the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill that we will consider this week. Under the new earmark rules adopted earlier this year, a list of earmarks accompanies the conference report. We received that list late last week. It contains 1,300 earmarks. Are we to assume that each of these 1,300 projects have been individually scrubbed to ensure their appropriateness to the legislation?
"I suspect that, as the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee said just weeks ago, there is no way to adequately screen these earmarks given the tight appropriation schedule. The question needs to be asked: Why are we so bent on moving forward with so many earmarks when we know we can't adequately screen them?
"I should note that no House earmarks were approved in last year's Labor-HHS bill. Last time I checked, the world didn't come crashing to a halt. What's more, owing to the politics surrounding the bill, no earmarks were approved the year before that. Here again, the planets seemed to stay in their orbit. The Chairman has frequently pointed out that, until a decade ago, the Labor-HHS bill wasn't earmarked at all. So, why are we so insistent on approving 1,300 earmarks this week, earmarks that we know haven't been adequately vetted and scrubbed?
"Perhaps the most frequent justification for the contemporary practice of earmarking is that, quote, 'Members of Congress know their districts better than some faceless bureaucrat in Washington, DC.' I'm not here to defend faceless bureaucrats. In fact, faceless bureaucrats often waste money on questionable projects in my own district. Faceless bureaucrats in federal agencies waste so much money that they need someone constantly looking over their shoulder. This is why congressional oversight is so important.
"But, let's face it: when we approve congressional earmarks for indoor rainforests in Iowa or teapot museums in North Carolina, we make the most spendthrift faceless bureaucrat look frugal. Excess by federal agencies should not excuse congressional excess. If federal agencies don't follow procedures requiring competitive bidding or other processes we have mandated, we should act by cutting funding and/or mandating improvements, not trying to one-up them with equally suspect appropriations.
"As an aside, we saw just weeks ago that the majority of this chamber chose to deny funding for an earmark requested by an individual member. For the record, I offered the amendment to deny funding for the "Perfect Christmas Tree Project." There was no federal nexus and it was not a wise use of federal dollars. But it was no less worthy than hundreds of projects funded by the same legislation. I would like to conclude that the amendment succeeded thanks to the compelling case I presented, but I suspect that political payback had more to do with it.
"The distribution of earmarks is based on politics, not policy. Most appropriations bills award 60 percent of the earmarks to the majority party and 40 percent to the minority party. Is there a policy reason for this allocation that can reverse itself with an election? In most appropriations bills, well-positioned members award themselves many more earmarks than rank and file members receive. Are we to assume that districts represented by well-positioned Members are needier than those represented by less seasoned Members of Congress? In some appropriations bills, each member of the committee is given an equal share of the available dollars. Are we to assume here that these districts have identical needs?
"The truth is, we can try all we want to conjure up some sort of noble pedigree for the contemporary practice of earmarking, but we are just drinking our own bathwater if we think the public is buying it. It seems that over that past few years we've tried to increase the number of earmarks enough so that the plaudits we hear from earmark recipients will drown out the voices of taxpayers all over the country who have had enough. It hasn't worked, thank goodness. For every group that directly benefits from earmarks, there are hundreds who see it as a transparent gimmick to assure our own reelection.
"Mr. Speaker, our constituents deserve better, and this institution deserves better than we are giving it. Let's return to the time honored practice of authorization, appropriation, and oversight that has served us so well."



...Read more!

You Gotta Laugh To Keep From Cryin'

Azamatteroprinciple Update. As the Appropriations bills come hot and heavy there are more and more stories about Pork Barrel Spending. Honestly, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I have said before my hope for this site is to be a clearing house of sorts for resources on the Internet for educating people about government spending, waste, corruption and abuse. This is a far from comprehensive update of recent news, sites and events from the web focusing on the problem. I would ask anyone with suggestions and/or other website/blog recommendations to e-mail me at azamatteroprinciple@gmail.com

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) wants $1 million for a Woodstock Museum. Sen. Daniel Inuoye (D-HI) wants $34 million for "Education of Native Hawaiians. Not to be out done, Sen. Kay Hutchinson (R-TX) has earmarks totaling roughly $500 million and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) is not far behind with $400 million. Click to read more about the best I have found recently on the web. Brit Hume on Special Report with Brit Hume had the story of Rep. Charles Rangell, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee (D-NY) requesting $2 million for the Charles B. Rangell Center for Public Service at City College of New York. Perhaps if he wanted to name it The Fat, Ignorant, Contemptuous of the Taxpayer, Bastard Center I might not be so upset. According to Hume on "The Political Grapevine" the list of earmarks runs hundreds of pages and would take hours to download even on a high speed internet connection. Luckily there is AZAMATTEROPRINCIPLE so all the information is only a few quick clicks away.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is driving Senators to adopt Sen. DeMint's (R-SC) tough earmark reforms. The C.A.G.W. also details pork barrel spending in the Senate appropriations for Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.

There are plenty of stories at Taxpayers for Common Sense regarding earmarks contained in all the appropriatins bills.

Americans for Prosperity questions the need for a Regional Prisons Museum in Kansas. Personally I think we should ALL question that one.

OMB Watch reports that stalled lobby reform bills will be resolved before August Recess.

There is a great blog about pork and corruption at Americans for Prosperity that I commend to your reading. They also have The Prodigal Sons of Pork(Is that like Son of a Pig?) which is a list of legilators who seem to have seen the light on pork.

Last and certainly not least, there is Porkbusters.org that has this...

Lots of Washington politicians talk a good case about eliminating wasteful federal spending but how many of them actually vote for needed reforms? The Examiner Newspapers/Porkbusters.org Earmark Reform Index shows who in the U.S. Senate is walking the talk and who's blowing smoke hoping voters don't look too closely.

I don't know why I get so upset. Oh. That's right. IT'S MY MONEY! and yours and yours and yours.

It’s not really a blog post unless I send it to my friends at Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Committees of Correspondence, Mark My Words, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, Right Celebrity, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. ...Read more!

A Cheesehead for Pork

There are plenty of reasons not to like Rep. David Obey (D-WI). However an article in the recent U.S. News and World Report by Silla Burth, shows the galling level of contempt that Obey has for those of us particularly concerned about pork-barrel spending and taxpayers in general. "His homestate newspaper said he had gone from hero to villain in six months.
"Earding to the article marking is hardly new, but over the past few years, the practice of Washington lawmakers quietly tucking billions of dollars for their pet projects into spending bills has become a political cause célèbre. Democrat Rep. David Obey, a longtime reformer, tried for years to cut the influence of earmarks. But after the Dems took the House last fall, Obey took over the House Appropriations Committee, and he's now the one feeling the heat."

Rep. Obey has been in the House for 38 years and since regaining control, the Democrats have forgotten about their pledges of good governance and listening to the American people. Well certainly Obey has. "He dismisses earmark stories as little league and his opponents' tactics as silly young politics." He further opines that "Earmarking is a tiny little aspect of what happens." Of the $20 billion in additional spending, Obey describes it as "this little difference we have in discretionary spending."

$29 Billion in earmarks is LITTLE LEAGUE??? A $20 billion difference in discretionary spending is LITTLE? I am sorry Rep. Obey but they are not. While I am grateful to be part of a league, even a little one, and practicing "silly young politics" (Oh, to be young again) your obvious contempt for me and millions of taxpayers shows that in fact that it is you who are playing out of your league.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, guerrilla radio, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Public Eye, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

...Read more!

MORE FLYING PORK...

Last week it was our tax dollars for an airport that no one has built. This week it is a jet engine that nobody wants.

Well, nobody in the military wants it. The engine in question is a spare for the Air Force’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, Massachusetts is designing the engine and says the project will bring jobs to the Bay State. That is where Sen. Ted Kennedy comes in.

According to the Boston Globe,

“Kennedy personally earmarked $100 million for the engine – more than 20% of its cost- during committee deliberations over the 2008 defense authorization bill.”

Kennedy knowing he would need other powerful senators to support the project, left $385 million to be earmarked by his partners in crime. He can be so generous with OUR money. Of course, the $485 million is not actually the cost of the engine project but just the cost to keep it alive. The program “is on a nearly half-billion dollar life support system” according to a recent posting on DefenseTech.org, a widely read military industry website. The Air Force spent $2.5 billion on the program before it decided “that it could not justify the parallel engine project, which could top $9 billion.

This project flies (pun intended) in the face of those who argue that earmarks are not actually extra spending but rather spending that is already in the budget but directed by specific legislators instead of a federal agency. The Air Force has not budgeted for this engine since 2005 and the two most recent Pentagon assessments concurred. “If you have to write a program explicitly into a piece of legislation it has generally failed all other cost-benefit analyses and otherwise would not have been approved.” According to Ronald D. Utt of The Heritage Foundation.

$9 billion of taxpayers money to create jobs in Ted Kennedy’s state building a jet engine that the Air Force doesn’t need or want. Ironically, there is no guarantee that GE, which has plants worldwide, would build the engine in Massachusetts so it is a $485 million crap shoot.

Finally, what is so striking about this earmark is that Ted Kennedy has spent so much time advocating controlling defense spending (perhaps control as in let him spend it as opposed to reducing it) while also excoriating the Bush Administration for failing to listen to the experts at the Pentagon on war policy.

Ted. The Pentagon experts have spoken. They don’t want or need the engine.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Stageleft, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, CatSynth.com, Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
...Read more!

PORK TAKES WING...

...or should I say 'WHEN PIGS FLY." When Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) was asked about his earmark request for a $231,000 SBA grant he said that he "would not request any Federal funding for the airport." Perhaps he should have just said "Oh you mean THAT Abraham Lincoln Airport." You see there is Abraham Lincoln Capitol Airport in Springfield, Illinois, which is served by United and American Airlines among others. But Jackson's earmark was for Abraham Lincoln National Airport in University Park which is served by, well nobody. Because it doesn't actually exist. Not only does it not exist but there are currently no plans to build it. Maybe that is why Jackson is only requesting $231,000 "to promote minority hiring and contracting" or as his spokeman said "to study how best transition this rural area into an airport economy." I am guessing the first step in the transition would be to move the cows and build an airport. Maybe Jackson realized that earmarking nearly a quarter million dollars for "bovine relocation assistance" wouldn't have made much sense in a Financial Services Committee Appropriations conference report. But I don't think building the airport was ever really the point. You see the Lincoln Airport Commission's Executive Director is a friend of Jackson's. Well more than a friend. Actually Richard Bryant is a full-time paid staffer in Jackson's regional office. So as taxpayers we get to pay for Bryant's Airport Commission as well as his staff salary. One has to wonder how he possibly has time to devote to these two vital jobs. Okay, maybe being the Executive Director of an Airport that doesn't exist doesn't take up all that much time. But his job as a waiter in the airport lounge must keep him hopping.

As an additional note, I found the $231,000 amount of the grant iteresting. The first time I ran into that number was reading the analysis of the Financial Services Committee Approriations Bill over at www.taxpayer.net and I was struck by how many SBA grants were for exactly $231,000. Initially I thought maybe there was a program with that dollar amount limit for individual grants. Researching further I found out that it was the maximum dollar amount that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) the sub-committee chairman allocated to all the members of the Approriations Committee for their pet pork projects. ...Read more!