White House posts earmarks on website

Pet spending projects that lawmakers put in the 2005 budget are listed. The administration's requests aren't.

By Nicole Gaouette and Tom Hamburger

Times Staff Writers

April 5, 2007

WASHINGTON — In a direct challenge to Congress and the way it does business, the White House on Wednesday unveiled an online list of all the pet spending projects lawmakers tucked in the federal budget for the 2004-05 fiscal year.

The Internet database details spending known as earmarks, funds that lawmakers funnel to projects, programs and sometimes even specific recipients without going through the normal budget review — such as the $25 million provided to California spinach farmers in the recent Iraq spending bill.

The amount of earmarked money has tripled in the last decade. And in early January, just as Democrats were taking power, President Bush challenged Congress to halve the number and amount of earmarks, from a record $19 billion in fiscal 2005.

"You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law," Bush said in his State of the Union address. "The time has come to end this practice."

The database, which allows the public to search for earmarks by state and by agency but not by name of the sponsoring lawmaker, is the most comprehensive list produced by the government. But Democrats pointed out Wednesday that it did not include the earmarks the president and his administration requested.

The list includes 13,496 earmarks, of which 1,182 went to California recipients for a total of $1.7 billion, the most of any state.

Beneficiaries included Los Angeles-based nonprofit companies — such as Fashion Business Inc. ($50,000 for workforce training) and the Jewish Vocational Service ($198,000 to train certified nursing assistants) — and Arcata-based Internews Network, which got nearly $8 million, mostly for training Indonesian journalists.

Other top recipients included Alaska, which got earmarks for agricultural research on northern climate crops ($1.6 million) and seafood waste ($1.2 million).

The website is the latest effort on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to shine light into the hidden realm of earmarks. For years, a few lone congressional protesters — Arizona Republicans Sen. John McCain and Rep. Jeff Flake to name two — attempted to halt the rampant growth of earmarks, which soared during the years Republicans were in control of Congress.

Members of both parties defend earmarking as a way for Congress to put attention on local concerns when executive-branch agencies are unresponsive. They are also important to congressional leaders in building their power as well as luring campaign contributions.

But in 2005, earmarking became a public concern. It emerged at the center of the case against former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe), now in prison for securing federal funding for individuals who provided him personal benefits.

It was also the basis for much of the wealth amassed by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was convicted of bribery and a bogus casino deal. He referred to the House Appropriations Committee as "the favor factory."

Flake hailed the database as a step forward. "Whenever any members of Congress can basically write a check to a group at home without any real oversight, and when people in Congress basically will look the other way if you'll offer them the same courtesy when they offer earmarks, you'll have something ripe for abuse," Flake said. "We shouldn't be surprised when we have a Duke Cunningham."

The congressman, who puts out a weekly e-mail spotlighting the "egregious earmark of the week," said the database "should help those of us who think this process is really short-circuiting the traditional authorizing, appropriating and oversight function of Congress. I think when taxpayers take a look, they'll be quite upset at how their dollars are being spent."

When Democrats took power, House and Senate leaders created rules that will identify sponsors of earmarks and require them to certify that they have no financial interest in the earmark.

"It was a missed opportunity to get rid of earmarks altogether," said Beth Daley, head of investigations at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan nonprofit. Daley calls earmarks "the funding stream for the lobbying profession."

The database, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb , lacks some information considered vital by activists. It is only for fiscal 2005 and does not give the name of the lawmaker behind the earmark.

It also does not include any earmarks requested by the administration. As a result, it contains fewer earmarks than some other sources. For example, the Congressional Research Service found $48 billion in earmarks in its review.

Some of those deficiencies will be addressed next year when congressionally authorized earmark disclosure data are released.

"This is a treasure trove of information that [the Office of Management and Budget] has made available to the public," said Steve Ellis, a vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that developed its own earmark database in years past. "We would like to see more, but this is far more than anyone else has had to date."

*

---

nicole.gaouette@latimes.com

tom.hamburger@latimes.com

*

Begin text of infobox

Special needs

In fiscal year 2005, there were more than 13,000 earmarks with a total value of $19 billion. Here are the top recipients.

California … $1.66 (in billions)

Pennsylvania … 1.09

Virginia … .94

Texas … .78

Florida … .72

*

California projects

About three-fourths of California's $1.6 billion in earmarks are directed to two areas - defense and transportation. Here is a selection of some of the recipients:

*

Defense

Allied Container Systems

(Pleasant Hill): $29.7 million for range enhancements at Twentynine Palms Marine base

MC Depots

(Barstow): $21.5 million for repairing battle-damaged vehicles

General Atomics-ASI

(Rancho Bernardo): $30 million to acquire two new Predator UAVs

Defense Language Institute

(Monterey): $6.7 million for a dental clinic

*

Transportation

California Department of Transportation: $197,000 for Angels Flight in Los Angeles

L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority: $1.9 million for the MTA bus program

L.A. County MTA: $496,000 for Gold Line subway Foothill extension

Caltrans: $4.2 million for ongoing earthquake retrofit of the Golden Gate Bridge

*

Source: Office of Management and Budget

Yes, Congressman, I Do Have a Problem With That

by Robert Higgs

Ho-hum. Members of Congress are busying themselves with their usual dishonest tricks, looting the taxpayers and proudly taking credit for their crimes.

According to USA Today ("Farm Aid Plumps Up Iraq Funding," March 22), House Democrats have loaded the emergency-spending bill for the Iraq war―a crime in its own right―with $3.7 billion in benefits for farm interests that support Democrats. In the minds of these devoted public servants, "supporting the troops" furnishes an apt occasion for enriching peanut, spinach, and milk producers, among others.

Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), who proudly calls himself "the peanut congressman," makes no apologies for allocating $74 million of the taxpayer's money to the glorious cause of paying storage fees for peanut growers. This largess constitutes a suitable payoff, it seems, for the reported $35,750 that peanut interests contributed to Bishop's last campaign.

Likewise, Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) does not hang his head when called to account for the $25 million in taxpayer dollars he helped direct to spinach growers "to offset losses from last fall's E. coli contamination." After all, how were those spinach farmers to know that crops sometimes become contaminated with germs―you don't think that sort of thing has ever happened before, do you? Surely the reported $30,600 that Rep. Farr received from spinach interests in his last campaign had nothing to do with his actions in committee. The suggestion that he is a special-interest prostitute is impolite, however true it might be.

House appropriations committee chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) understands instinctively that the United States can't win the war in Iraq without a solid phalanx of milk producers to back up the troops. This tactical concern probably explains the reported $252 million for additional milk subsidies that somehow found its way into the bill Obey's committee brought forth. Any intimation that the congressman is a mere highwayman for the milk interests would be rude, except that Obey himself affirms its truth without shame. "I represent dairy farmers," he declares. "You got a problem with that?"

"Every time there is a disaster on the farming front, the federal government provides assistance," Obey declares. "This is no different than what's been done for the last 50 years." Think about that statement. For fifty years running―actually, it's closer to ninety, in one way or another―members of Congress have been extorting money from citizens on pain of fines and imprisonment in order to enrich farmers who've never learned that farming is risky. Mythology apart, when it comes to actually bearing the risk, the farmer's slogan has long been "better you than me, pal," and the agribusiness lackeys in Congress make sure that not a blade of wheat wilts without eliciting generous taxpayer compensation.

So, for a mere $113,000 reportedly directed to Rep. Obey by the milk interests since 1989, the agro-bandits get back this year alone a handsome return of $252 million, not to mention the other stupendous amounts of booty they've raked in from time immemorial. You and I can only dream of investments that return such gorgeous profits. Scientific, technological, and economic innovation be damned, I say. If we really want to get rich with no risk at all, we must invest in a congressman or two.

Punctilious observers may protest that the Constitution gives Congress no power to take my money and give it to farmer Jones. Unfortunately, the wise men of the Supreme Court have sensed emanations and penumbras of pesticide, herbicide, and livestock dung hovering above the sacred document. In decisions such as Wickard v. Filburn (317 U.S. 111 [1942]), the mandarins in black robes have placed their stamp of approval on transparent piracy, justifying it with some of the most palpably sophistical pseudo-rationalizations ever written down. This disgraceful judicial "reasoning" really must be seen to be believed. Don't take my word for it; look it up.

The whole government gang―legislative, executive, and judicial―is clearly in on the crime, so the criminals themselves have nothing to fear from the powers that be. Indeed, the criminals and the powers are one and the same.

Which makes you and me what? Accessories to a crime, for electing these criminals? Chumps, for supinely putting up with what they do? Too busy with work, daily life, and family problems to notice that a large amount of our earnings is being deducted for such disgusting "public" purposes as taking from Peter and giving to Paul―a Paul who has no more right to the money than a dark-alley mugger?

To me, the matter seems all too plain: I've been robbed, you've been robbed, and the robbers remain cheerfully on the loose.

March 24, 2007

Robert Higgs [send him mail] is senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review. His most recent book is Depression, War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy. He is also the author of Resurgence of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11 and Against Leviathan.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Pork Subterfuge

Earmark Subterfuge

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, March 19, 2007; A15

As part of "Sunshine Week," meant to promote transparent government, the Office of Management and Budget was supposed to release a comprehensive database last Monday revealing the number and cost of earmarks since 2005. It did not. Word on Capitol Hill was that OMB was muzzled by the White House for fear of offending powerful congressional appropriators.

Meanwhile, the Senate Appropriations subcommittee staffs under Democratic control are privately asking individual senators for earmark requests, without much transparency. That would seem to make a sham of the pledge by Appropriations Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va) to "place a moratorium on all earmarks until a reformed process is put in place."

Thanks partly to the outcome of the 2006 elections, members of Congress can no longer blithely earmark funds for pet projects. But in the dark recesses of Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties are continuing the pernicious practice as best they can. The question is whether they will be curbed by the Republican administration or the Democratic Congress, or by both.

OMB Director Rob Portman, a former member of the House Republican leadership, is a firm opponent of earmarks. On Jan. 25, he signed a memorandum for heads of departments on the collection of information about earmarks. It set forth a rigid timeline to culminate in the posting on March 12 of all these data on the "public Internet." What would be revealed would be a rare exposure of the murky world of congressional pork.

But just as OMB was preparing to put out the information, it sent word to Capitol Hill that -- over the agency's protests -- the data were being kept under wraps by the White House to appease the appropriators. With Congress in the midst of the budget process, President Bush's team did not want to stir up the Hill.

All that was released last Monday was a compilation of 2005 earmarks, with few details. Portman publicly called it "an important first step towards providing greater transparency." In private, however, he said last week: "My hands are tied." Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), scourge of earmarks, told me: "I think the American people should be very disappointed."

An even stronger example of the resiliency of the congressional pork purveyors is the appropriators' noncompliance with the ethics bill that passed the Senate 96 to 2 but awaits final enactment. Coburn delivered a letter to Chairman Byrd, saying: "The committee's failure to make earmark information public would make a mockery of recently passed earmark reforms and would suggest to taxpayers that the Senate wants to continue to earmark funds in secret."

Skimpy though the information is, however, OMB's posting still generated calls of protest to the agency from members of Congress. It is business as usual in the earmarks business orchestrated by the Senate Appropriations subcommittees.

On Feb. 21, the interior, environment and related agencies subcommittee sent senators a detailed procedure for earmarks with a March 30 deadline. On Feb. 28, the chairman and ranking Republican on the energy and water development subcommittee asked for earmark requests that "identify" their "beneficial role." On March 7, the agriculture subcommittee sent senators a request form.

Such request forms generally omit the requirements of the new ethics bill: for example, disclosure of any personal financial interest in an earmark by a member of Congress. The labor, health and human services and education subcommittee's form asks only that the request be made by April 13. Coburn's letter to Byrd: "Your experience and institutional knowledge are invaluable, and I look forward to working with you to ensure that all taxpayers dollars are expended in a fully transparent and responsible manner."

Whether or not Coburn really expects help from Capitol Hill's king of pork, he surely would like to see George W. Bush shrug off the threat of the appropriators and get involved in the war against earmarks. A senior White House aide has advised that the full story, expected last week, will be told by the end of the month. It will be a good test of presidential intent.

On Dave Obey, “Idiot Liberals” and Ending the War

The blogosphere is abuzz with talk of Wisconsin Rep. Dave Obey’s (D) frustrated outburst about Iraq caught on YouTube. Antiwar activists are high-fiving each other, almost as if catching Obey’s outburst about "idiot liberals" is as big a YouTube feat as catching George Allen saying "macaca." This is deeply troubling on a number of levels, and an opportunity for a bit of constructive self-reflection about where we as a progressive movement are.

I’m going to say a few things here that some of my readers aren’t going to like - some things that I’ve been pondering as I am writing my new book. But it’s important at times to look at ourselves and our movement critically if we are to continue advancing. Here’s the deal folks: There are some "idiot liberals" out there, and this episode actually highlights that reality.

Dave Obey represents a pretty conservative district that is not exactly easy for a Democrat to represent (this is why the NRSC can’t wait for him to retire). He originally voted against the war, he has been one of the most outspoken critics of the war, and he has repeatedly used his position as Appropriations Chairman to try to get the situation in Iraq under control. These are the facts, and I witnessed it first hand, having worked for him a few years ago.

Now, you can argue whether his tactics right now are smart. You can have a reasoned disagreement about whether he should be pushing a supplemental appropriations bill that includes new money for veterans medical care and binding language to end the war by March of 2008. There is a very legitimate case to be made that Democrats shouldn’t support any money to continue the war and that the supplemental appropriations bill that Obey is carrying does also do that.

However, berating one of the antiwar movement’s longtime leaders and then trying to mount his head on the virtual YouTube wall over a debate about the best WAY to end the war suggests that the antiwar movement fundamentally does not understand the very power structure it is trying to influence. It’s the same fundamental misunderstanding we at the Progressive States Network experienced when a few antiwar activists attacked us for pushing resolutions in state legislatures that "only" call for Congress to defund the Iraq escalation, as opposed to ending the war entirely (which, by the way, many of these resolutions do - Progressive States, unlike some other organizations on the left, is not in the top-down habit of dictating to state legislators what they exactly have to do - we provide models and templates and support so the effort is actually homegrown, and in that process our models and templates are customized).

Dave Obey is an ally of the progressive movement on almost every issue, and on the war in specific. Go ahead and try to claim I’m only saying that because I once worked for him, but then take some time and look at his voting record and his actions. By any standard - other than those of a tiny group of, yes, "idiot liberals" - Obey is a progressive hero. Spending time and energy attacking him, as opposed to the true obstacles to ending the war, is both a waste, and potentially couterproductive, because someone like Obey, representing the district that he does, could easily just walk away (he won’t, because he’s Obey, but conceptually he certainly could).

The real news out of Obey’s outburst is that, as the Associated Press confirms, he really doesn’t have the votes in the Democratic caucus to cut off funding for the war, and that he courageously broke traditional etiquette by implicitly calling out the faction of pro-war Democrats who are standing in the way of stronger action on the war. These are the obstacles that the progressive movement should be focusing on pressuring. Obey’s frustration clearly comes from his perception (whether right or wrong) that he, an antiwar stalwart from a "tough district" is being unduly harassed at the very time he needs the progressive movement to help him whip votes out of other Democrats who are the real problem. And his frustration is grounded in reality - fairly often, progressive activists, and the Netroots in particular, give passes to conservative Democrats because they come from the same kinds of "tough districts" Obey comes from.

I’m in no way excusing Obey’s behavior that was caught on film. He didn’t take time to communicate properly, he got way too angry way too fast and his frustration translated into him mistreating the people who were asking him questions. That is unacceptable, and I’m happy he apologized. He needed to.

However, the troubling thing out of the spat is not Obey’s behavior: it is the reaction to it by the progressive movement, and what that reaction really says. The idea that Jack Murtha - the guy who voted for the war, the guy who was one of the most outspoken pro-war Democrats, the guy who has never seen a defense bill he didn’t try to increase - is now an antiwar saint beyond reproach, but Dave Obey is some sort of pro-war villain is so fundamentally absurd it suggests that at least some who liken themselves as progressive movement leaders really are "idiot liberals" because they have positively no idea how the hell basic movement building or power works (mind you - I’m not saying Jack Murtha hasn’t been courageous in opposing the war of late- he has, which is why I thought he should have been Majority Leader - but the point is that the basic understanding of "allies" and "enemies" can be wholly misunderstood).

If those working in professional movement politics really want to end the war - and not just be in a perpetual state of unproductive contrarian outrage - they can start by remembering the need to target pressure and the need to apply both the carrot and the stick. Shoving a stick up the rear end of an ally is the behavior of “idiots” - whether liberal or otherwise - because it only puts our goal farther out of reach.

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry

posted 3/10/2007 by David Sirota @ 12:28 pm | Permalink

Democrats lard bill to bring troops home from Iraq with domestic projects

By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press
2007-03-10 08:20 AM

Democrats seeking votes for their Iraq-withdrawal plan have stuffed the bill it is in with billions of dollars for farms, flu preparedness, New Orleans levees, home heating and other causes.

Some critics say the Democrats are being opportunistic, using a must-pass measure to authorize money for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to carry items that could not advance as easily on their own.

At the same time, Democratic leaders are trying to increase support for setting deadlines for ending U.S. military combat in Iraq, which they have made part of the larger legislation.

It is clear that Democrats are unwilling to approve the bill's $100 billion (euro76 billion) for Iraq and Afghanistan without devoting considerable sums to the home front.

"The president wants to make sure we take care of Iraq, but I think we also have to make sure that we don't lose sight of what we have to do here at home," said Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

Already, money in the bill not directly related to the war exceeds $20 billion (euro15.2 billion).

The funding _ ranging from $3.5 billion (euro2.66 billion) for medical care for veterans and active duty troops to $500 million (euro380.1 million) in "emergency" money for a Western fire season that has yet to start _ has raised hackles with Republicans who say Democrats are using the measure to muscle federal dollars back home.

"Wartime funding should be not used as a gravy train," said conservative Sen. Republican Judd Gregg.

Gregg said the White House would be hard-pressed to veto the bill because of the add-ons. Still, a veto promise hangs over the bill because of its higher-profile provisions that set a deadline for ending the U.S. military role in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey, is not waiting on the coming farm bill to extend income subsidies aimed at small dairy farms. Obey's 13-month extension would cost $283 million (euro215.1 million).

Those items and others, including $2.5 billion (euro1.9 billion) for homeland security projects such as additional cargo screening at ports and airports, $2.9 billion (euro2.2 billion) for levee improvements and other aid for the Gulf Coast, and $735 million (euro558.7 million) to close shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, offer virtually every lawmaker a reason to vote for the Iraq funding bill regardless of feelings about the war itself.

Later Friday, the White House sent Congress $3.2 billion (euro2.4 billion) in revisions to its $94.3 billion (euro71.7 billion) request for Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30.

The money would pay for 4,700 additional troops to support President George W. Bush's influx of 21,500 combat troops to stabilize Baghdad and Anbar province, along with additional funds for vehicles with V-shaped bottoms more resistant to roadside bombs. Another $510 million (euro387.7 million) would send an additional 7,200 troops to Afghanistan to prepare for an offensive expected soon by the Taliban and to train Afghan security forces.

To keep costs down, the White House eliminated several much-criticized requests for airplanes, including two next-generation Joint Strike Fighters, that never would have seen action in Iraq. Opponents said the Pentagon was using the war-funding bill to evade budget limits, much like the criticism being leveled at Democrats for adding domestic items.

Democrats Buy War From Bush and Use it to Fund Projects for their Constituents

related
Democrats scale back plans to challenge Bush's Iraq 'surge'
---
Mar 5, 2007

By Kevin Zeese

The Democrats' Iraq War may be even more disgusting than the Republicans'. They are using it as a Christmas tree to fund a host of projects that they could not get funded in any other way.

The Democrats have reportedly decided to pass the Iraq War supplemental with meaningless restrictions designed to embarrass the president rather than end the war or bring the troops home safely. They will require the president to explain why he is using troops that are not combat ready, rather than stopping him from doing so.

The article reports: “Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the goal was 'to get consensus within the caucus on this' and 'pass the war funding bill.'” So, while the Democrats claim to be passing the supplemental to support the troops they are providing funds to allow ill equipped, non-combat ready troops to be sent into a quagmire with no clear goal in a war that cannot be won and is not supported by the American public.

The Democrats say they are providing the funding “for the troops” but now that they have decided to pass the supplemental -- essentially giving a president they constantly criticize as irresponsible another $93 billion on top of the $420 billion already provided -- their other agenda is becoming clear.

The Associated Press reports that the Democrats plan to use the Iraq War to fund projects for their constituents. The Democrats’ illegal war in Iraq -- they are in the process of buying it from the President Bush so we may as well start calling it “The Democrats’ War” -- will be a Christmas present for California's avocado growers and others. The Speaker of the House, who is based in California, is bringing home the guacamole -- more than $1 billion in aid to California avocado growers on the backs of US troops!

The Associated Press is reporting that the Democrats “hope to load this measure up with $10 billion in add-ons, from aid for avocado growers to help for children lacking health insurance. Lawmakers also hope to add money for drought relief in the Great Plains, better levees in New Orleans and development of military bases that are closing down.” Maybe some of these projects can be justified, but they should be justified on their own not on the backs of US soldiers risking life and limb.

The Democrats are confident they can get these billions in taxpayer give-a-ways through because the Republicans will not vote against the war funding and Bush will not veto it. Who knows what giveaways will be added by other Members of Congress as this bill works its way through the House and Senate. Pork barrel politics on the backs of US soldiers makes an already ugly war even more ugly.

The Democrats may find the political price is higher than they expect. The public wants the war to end; they don’t like tax dollars given to campaign contributors. So, the Democrats in less than two months in power are abusing their majority status -- using the war to fund projects for their friends. Is this why the voters gave the Democrats majority power in both Houses?


Kevin Zeese is Director of Democracy Rising and co-founder of VotersForPeace.US.

As Power Shifts in New Congress, Pork May Linger

November 26, 2006

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Excerpts

Senators Ted Stevens of Alaska and Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii are the best of friends in the Senate, so close they call each other brother. Both are decorated veterans of World War II. They have worked together for nearly four decades as senators from the two youngest and farthest-flung states. And they share an almost unrivaled appetite for what some call political pork.

Mr. Stevens, an 83-year-old Republican, and Mr. Inouye, an 82-year-old Democrat, routinely deliver to their states more money per capita in earmarks — the pet projects lawmakers insert into major spending bills — than any other state gets. This year, Alaska received $1.05 billion in earmarks, or $1,677.27 per resident, while Hawaii got $903.9 million, or $746.05 per resident, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group that tracks such figures.

Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader, and many Democratic candidates have railed for months against wasteful 'special interest earmarks' inserted into bills 'in the dark of night.' Now their party’s electoral victories mean that Mr. Stevens will hand Mr. Inouye the gavel of the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee, which presides over the largest pool of discretionary spending and earmarks. But if the Democratic leaders are talking about “earmark reform,” that may be news to Mr. Inouye.

'I don’t see any monumental changes,' Mr. Inouye said in a recent interview. He plans to continue his subcommittee’s approach to earmarks, he said. 'If something is wrong we should clean house,' he said, 'but if they can explain it and justify it, I will look at it.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/washington/26earmarks.html