TOLEDO, Ohio — Just one day after leaders of the House of Representatives announced a ban on earmarks to profit-making companies, Victoria Kurtz, the vice president for marketing of a small Ohio defense contracting firm, hit on a creative way around it.
To keep the taxpayer money flowing, Ms. Kurtz incorporated what she called the Great Lakes Research Center, a nonprofit organization that just happened to specialize in the same kind of work performed by her own company — and at the same address.
Now, the center — which intends to sell the Pentagon small hollow metal spheres for body armor that the Defense Department has so far declined to buy in large quantities and may never use — has $10.4 million in new earmark requests from Representative Marcy Kaptur, Democrat of Ohio.
The congresswoman, who has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Ms. Kurtz’s family and her business’s lobbyists, thought the quickly hatched nonprofit organization was a convenient solution.
“They met the requirements of the reform,” Ms. Kaptur said in an interview. “Yes, they did.”
The proposed earmarks are among dozens — totaling more than $150 million — from around the country that would indirectly benefit profit-making companies, according to an examination by The New York Times of House appropriation requests submitted after the new rule was imposed in March.
Showing posts with label earmarks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label earmarks. Show all posts
Monday, July 5, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Yes, earmarks are corrupting and costly; what we didn't know is that they also are damaging to communities that receive them
There are many reasons to oppose federal earmarks and pork barrel spending. They're wasteful and inefficient; they promote corruption and kickbacks; and, as was vividly demonstrated with the "Lousiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback" during the Senate Obamacare debate, pork barrel spending can be used to persuade congressmen to support outrageously expensive legislation they would normally oppose. Further proof of the pernicious effect of earmarks comes from a new study by the Harvard Business School -- "Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?" -- that concludes federal pork kills jobs and stifles local economies.
Using data spanning four decades, Harvard researchers measured the effects on local businesses as their local congressmen grew in stature in Washington. The study correctly assumed that when a senator or representative acquired a powerful committee assignment, he would exploit his new position to funnel more money to constituents back home. But the Harvard researchers also assumed -- incorrectly, they would discover -- that local businesses in a member's home state or district would benefit from opening up the federal largesse.
"It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman's state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending," said Joshua Coval, one of the study's three principal authors. In fact, the study found that in the years following a congressman acquiring a powerful committee assignment, the average company in his state cut back capital expenditures by 15 percent. In one prominent example, Alabama went from receiving $6 million less in annual earmark spending than other states to $90 million above the state average after Republican Sen. Richard Shelby assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1997. Shelby earmarked $15 million for low-cost fabricated housing, but the study found that one of Alabama's largest suppliers of this housing, Homes Inc., correspondingly reduced capital expenditures by 79.5 percent and downsized its work force by 30 percent.
Coincidence? Not likely. "The pattern repeats itself across decades and over thousands of firms," notes the Manhattan Institute's Steven Malanga in his examination of the study, appropriately headlined "Businesses: Beware Pols Bearing Earmarks."
Using data spanning four decades, Harvard researchers measured the effects on local businesses as their local congressmen grew in stature in Washington. The study correctly assumed that when a senator or representative acquired a powerful committee assignment, he would exploit his new position to funnel more money to constituents back home. But the Harvard researchers also assumed -- incorrectly, they would discover -- that local businesses in a member's home state or district would benefit from opening up the federal largesse.
"It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman's state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending," said Joshua Coval, one of the study's three principal authors. In fact, the study found that in the years following a congressman acquiring a powerful committee assignment, the average company in his state cut back capital expenditures by 15 percent. In one prominent example, Alabama went from receiving $6 million less in annual earmark spending than other states to $90 million above the state average after Republican Sen. Richard Shelby assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1997. Shelby earmarked $15 million for low-cost fabricated housing, but the study found that one of Alabama's largest suppliers of this housing, Homes Inc., correspondingly reduced capital expenditures by 79.5 percent and downsized its work force by 30 percent.
Coincidence? Not likely. "The pattern repeats itself across decades and over thousands of firms," notes the Manhattan Institute's Steven Malanga in his examination of the study, appropriately headlined "Businesses: Beware Pols Bearing Earmarks."
Friday, June 4, 2010
Congress critters got $2 million from beneficiaries of earmarks
House and Senate lawmakers have received nearly $2 million in campaign contributions this election cycle from organizations for which they had sponsored earmarks, according to a new report by two nonpartisan watchdogs.
Over half of the members of the House and Senate accepted money for the November elections from recipients of their earmarks, according to the report, released Thursday by the Center for Responsive Politics and Taxpayers for Common Sense. Thirteen senators and nine House members received more than $20,000 from companies and organizations that were beneficiaries of their earmarks.
"In too many cases campaign contributors are able to donate thousands of dollars and get millions of dollars back in earmarks," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the taxpayers' group. "This isn't altruism that is driving their behavior."
In total, lawmakers spent $15.9 billion on earmarks in the current fiscal year, only a fraction of which went to campaign contributors, according to the group. That figure is less than the $19.9 billion spent in fiscal 2009.
Earmarks, which direct spending to specific recipients, have become a political issue as the federal deficit has ballooned. Critics charge that the spending is directed to lawmakers' pet projects, bypassing competitive bidding and other fairness safeguards. Democratic leaders said this year that they will allow earmarks only for nonprofit organizations. Republican leaders said they would seek to ban all earmarks.
The report also found $269 million in lobbying last year by earmark recipients, though that figure includes amounts spent on other issues as well. "Even with all of the scrutiny that we've seen in the last couple of years, earmarks are still a big business," Ellis said.
Over half of the members of the House and Senate accepted money for the November elections from recipients of their earmarks, according to the report, released Thursday by the Center for Responsive Politics and Taxpayers for Common Sense. Thirteen senators and nine House members received more than $20,000 from companies and organizations that were beneficiaries of their earmarks.
"In too many cases campaign contributors are able to donate thousands of dollars and get millions of dollars back in earmarks," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the taxpayers' group. "This isn't altruism that is driving their behavior."
In total, lawmakers spent $15.9 billion on earmarks in the current fiscal year, only a fraction of which went to campaign contributors, according to the group. That figure is less than the $19.9 billion spent in fiscal 2009.
Earmarks, which direct spending to specific recipients, have become a political issue as the federal deficit has ballooned. Critics charge that the spending is directed to lawmakers' pet projects, bypassing competitive bidding and other fairness safeguards. Democratic leaders said this year that they will allow earmarks only for nonprofit organizations. Republican leaders said they would seek to ban all earmarks.
The report also found $269 million in lobbying last year by earmark recipients, though that figure includes amounts spent on other issues as well. "Even with all of the scrutiny that we've seen in the last couple of years, earmarks are still a big business," Ellis said.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Self-proclaimed deficit hawk seeks billions in earmarks
WASHINGTON - Despite attempts in the House and by the Obama administration to rein in earmarking, both Ohio senators say they are standing by their requests, which this year amount to nearly $2.3 billion combined.
Earmarks are targeted requests for local funding that lawmakers try each year to insert into the federal budget.
Earmarked spending makes up a small percentage of the overall federal budget, as most lawmakers who earmark tend to point out.
But it's drawn increased attention - and criticism - in the past few years. A growing number of lawmakers from both parties have been caught up in scandals related to trading earmarks for campaign contributions or other favors. For many, earmarks symbolize the out-of-control spending that has engulfed Washington.
Sen. George Voinovich, who refers to himself as the chamber's biggest "deficit hawk," asked for $470.3 million for 177 earmarks.
His spokeswoman, Jennifer Scoggins, said the Cleveland Republican supports "good, targeted and transparent earmarks." She said Voinovich also supports efforts to reduce federal spending in other areas that make up a larger part of the federal budget.
"As a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the senator continues to seek funding for worthy projects to help get Ohio its fair share, stimulate the economy and cultivate jobs," she said.
But watchdog groups say lawmakers can't have it both ways.
"Taking a stand against deficit spending can have a lot more sway with the outside world if you take a stand against earmarks, as well," said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the nonpartisan Washington-based National Taxpayers Union.
Earmarks are targeted requests for local funding that lawmakers try each year to insert into the federal budget.
Earmarked spending makes up a small percentage of the overall federal budget, as most lawmakers who earmark tend to point out.
But it's drawn increased attention - and criticism - in the past few years. A growing number of lawmakers from both parties have been caught up in scandals related to trading earmarks for campaign contributions or other favors. For many, earmarks symbolize the out-of-control spending that has engulfed Washington.
Sen. George Voinovich, who refers to himself as the chamber's biggest "deficit hawk," asked for $470.3 million for 177 earmarks.
His spokeswoman, Jennifer Scoggins, said the Cleveland Republican supports "good, targeted and transparent earmarks." She said Voinovich also supports efforts to reduce federal spending in other areas that make up a larger part of the federal budget.
"As a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the senator continues to seek funding for worthy projects to help get Ohio its fair share, stimulate the economy and cultivate jobs," she said.
But watchdog groups say lawmakers can't have it both ways.
"Taking a stand against deficit spending can have a lot more sway with the outside world if you take a stand against earmarks, as well," said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the nonpartisan Washington-based National Taxpayers Union.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Republicans plan to restore earmarks if they win control
House Republicans in line to chair important committees want less-stringent earmark spending rules next year, when they hope to be in control of the chamber.
Senior Republicans are pushing for a policy that would allow earmarks, the provisions lawmakers insert in spending bills to fund projects in their districts, but would make the process more transparent. House GOP leaders imposed a temporary moratorium on all earmarks in March in a bid to demonstrate fiscal discipline in an election year.
That moratorium expires at the end of the year, when a new policy will be put in place, said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), ranking member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
“It is just a moratorium, it’s not a total ban,” he said.
Mica said it was more important to have a consistent “protocol on what’s acceptable” for earmarks than to have a complete prohibition on them.
Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.), the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, has backed the one-year moratorium but has also defended lawmakers’ right to earmark money for specific projects.
Lewis “supports the constitutional authority of Congress — not the president or the executive branch — to craft budgets and determine federal spending,” said spokeswoman Jennifer Hing.
The push to free up earmark powers could put Republican leaders in a tough spot by creating a clash with the party’s earmark hawks.
Senior Republicans are pushing for a policy that would allow earmarks, the provisions lawmakers insert in spending bills to fund projects in their districts, but would make the process more transparent. House GOP leaders imposed a temporary moratorium on all earmarks in March in a bid to demonstrate fiscal discipline in an election year.
That moratorium expires at the end of the year, when a new policy will be put in place, said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), ranking member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
“It is just a moratorium, it’s not a total ban,” he said.
Mica said it was more important to have a consistent “protocol on what’s acceptable” for earmarks than to have a complete prohibition on them.
Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.), the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, has backed the one-year moratorium but has also defended lawmakers’ right to earmark money for specific projects.
Lewis “supports the constitutional authority of Congress — not the president or the executive branch — to craft budgets and determine federal spending,” said spokeswoman Jennifer Hing.
The push to free up earmark powers could put Republican leaders in a tough spot by creating a clash with the party’s earmark hawks.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Your tax money being spent on Kennedy legend
The Boston Herald reports that former Sen. Ted Kennedy (God rest his kleptocratic soul) will have a museum erected in his honor and the good people of Taxachusetts will pay for it:
"The amount of taxpayer money being funneled to a Dorchester shrine to the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has ballooned to $38 million and could rise to at least $68 million this year, infuriating watchdog groups who insist the project should be privately funded.
With $38.3 million in federal earmarks already secured for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, Sen. John F. Kerry and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Malden) have in recent days tapped the government for $30 million more in the next budget.
The new taxpayer-funded total would cover the full $60 million estimated cost of building the project, adjacent to John F. Kennedy Presidential Library at Columbia Point. And it would put the public on the hook for nearly half the project’s $150 million target.''
I submit that the Great Souls behind this exhibit include text from Michael Kelly’s 1990 profile of Kennedy somewhere in the mausoleum of Democracy:
"The Kennedy brothers always perpetuated their own glorious images, but over the years the last brother has built an image—not glorious at all—of his very own. For his hard public drinking, his obsessive public womanizing and his frequent boorishness, he has become a late-century legend, Teddy the Terrible, the Kennedy Untrammeled. In Washington, it sometimes seems as if everyone knows someone who has slept with Kennedy, been invited to sleep with Kennedy, seen Kennedy drunk, been insulted by Kennedy. At Desirée, a private Georgetown club where well-heeled fat men mingle with society brats and party girls, Kennedy is known as a thrice-a-month habitué and remembered by at least one fellow customer for the time he made a scene with his overenthusiasm for a runway model during a club fashion show. In a downtown office, a former congressional page tells of her surprise meeting with Kennedy three years ago. She was 16 then. It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy’s limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No? How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was “very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary.” It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy’s invitation surprising. “He didn’t even know me,” she says. “I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn’t expect it to happen to me.”
"The amount of taxpayer money being funneled to a Dorchester shrine to the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has ballooned to $38 million and could rise to at least $68 million this year, infuriating watchdog groups who insist the project should be privately funded.
With $38.3 million in federal earmarks already secured for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, Sen. John F. Kerry and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Malden) have in recent days tapped the government for $30 million more in the next budget.
The new taxpayer-funded total would cover the full $60 million estimated cost of building the project, adjacent to John F. Kennedy Presidential Library at Columbia Point. And it would put the public on the hook for nearly half the project’s $150 million target.''
I submit that the Great Souls behind this exhibit include text from Michael Kelly’s 1990 profile of Kennedy somewhere in the mausoleum of Democracy:
"The Kennedy brothers always perpetuated their own glorious images, but over the years the last brother has built an image—not glorious at all—of his very own. For his hard public drinking, his obsessive public womanizing and his frequent boorishness, he has become a late-century legend, Teddy the Terrible, the Kennedy Untrammeled. In Washington, it sometimes seems as if everyone knows someone who has slept with Kennedy, been invited to sleep with Kennedy, seen Kennedy drunk, been insulted by Kennedy. At Desirée, a private Georgetown club where well-heeled fat men mingle with society brats and party girls, Kennedy is known as a thrice-a-month habitué and remembered by at least one fellow customer for the time he made a scene with his overenthusiasm for a runway model during a club fashion show. In a downtown office, a former congressional page tells of her surprise meeting with Kennedy three years ago. She was 16 then. It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy’s limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No? How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was “very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary.” It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy’s invitation surprising. “He didn’t even know me,” she says. “I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn’t expect it to happen to me.”
Friday, March 26, 2010
Stupak and other switchers in favor of Obamacare asked for $4.7 billion in earmarks the next day
The Sunlight Foundation comes through with a dagger of a story:
A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the “Stupak 11″ released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion–an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker.
The eleven members were the focus of high level pressure by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats because they threatened to vote against the health care reform bill, which passed the House on Sunday, March 21, by a seven vote margin. Granting earmark requests are one of the ways leadership can encourage members to vote their way.
Stupak requested more than $578 million in earmarks, including $125 million for a replacement lock on the Sault Ste. Marie, $25.6 million to build a federal courthouse in Marquette, Mich., $15 million to repaint the Mackinac Bridge and $800,000 to preserve the Quincy Mining Company smelter near Hancock in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
In 2009, the first year that members disclosed earmark requests, most members requested far more earmarks than were funded by the Appropriations Committee, which approves or denies requests. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Stupak’s funded earmarks–including those he requested jointly with other members–totaled $28.6 million.
A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the “Stupak 11″ released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion–an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker.
The eleven members were the focus of high level pressure by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats because they threatened to vote against the health care reform bill, which passed the House on Sunday, March 21, by a seven vote margin. Granting earmark requests are one of the ways leadership can encourage members to vote their way.
Stupak requested more than $578 million in earmarks, including $125 million for a replacement lock on the Sault Ste. Marie, $25.6 million to build a federal courthouse in Marquette, Mich., $15 million to repaint the Mackinac Bridge and $800,000 to preserve the Quincy Mining Company smelter near Hancock in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
In 2009, the first year that members disclosed earmark requests, most members requested far more earmarks than were funded by the Appropriations Committee, which approves or denies requests. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Stupak’s funded earmarks–including those he requested jointly with other members–totaled $28.6 million.
Monday, February 23, 2009
New Obama bill riddled with 9,000 earmarks
WASHINGTON — During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain fought vigorously over who would be toughest on congressional earmarks.
"We need earmark reform," Obama said in September during a presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. "And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
President Barack Obama should prepare to carve out a lot of free time and keep the coffee hot this week as Congress prepares to unveil a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that's riddled with thousands of earmarks, despite his calls for restraint and efforts on Capitol Hill to curtail the practice.
The bill will contain about 9,000 earmarks totaling $5 billion, congressional officials say. Many of the earmarks — loosely defined as local projects inserted by members of Congress — were inserted last year as the spending bills worked their way through various committees.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/stimulus_bill_earmarks/2009/02/23/184512.html?s=al&promo_code=7ACC-1
"We need earmark reform," Obama said in September during a presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. "And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
President Barack Obama should prepare to carve out a lot of free time and keep the coffee hot this week as Congress prepares to unveil a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that's riddled with thousands of earmarks, despite his calls for restraint and efforts on Capitol Hill to curtail the practice.
The bill will contain about 9,000 earmarks totaling $5 billion, congressional officials say. Many of the earmarks — loosely defined as local projects inserted by members of Congress — were inserted last year as the spending bills worked their way through various committees.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/stimulus_bill_earmarks/2009/02/23/184512.html?s=al&promo_code=7ACC-1
Monday, January 26, 2009
Earmarks are flying under the radar
"President Barack Obama's ban on earmarks in the $825 billion economic stimulus bill doesn't mean interest groups, lobbyists and lawmakers won't be able to funnel money to pet projects.
They're just working around it — and perhaps inadvertently making the process more secretive.
The projects run the gamut: a Metrolink station that needs building in Placentia, Calif.; a stretch of beach in Sandy Hook, N.J., that could really use some more sand; a water park in Miami.
There are thousands of projects like those that once would have been gotten money upfront but now are left to scramble for dollars at the back end of the process as "ready to go" jobs eligible for the stimulus plan.
The result, as The Associated Press learned in interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers, lobbyists and state and local officials, is a shadowy lobbying effort that may make it difficult to discern how hundreds of billions in federal money will be parceled out."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Jan/26/lobbyists_skirt_obama_s_earmark_ban.html
They're just working around it — and perhaps inadvertently making the process more secretive.
The projects run the gamut: a Metrolink station that needs building in Placentia, Calif.; a stretch of beach in Sandy Hook, N.J., that could really use some more sand; a water park in Miami.
There are thousands of projects like those that once would have been gotten money upfront but now are left to scramble for dollars at the back end of the process as "ready to go" jobs eligible for the stimulus plan.
The result, as The Associated Press learned in interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers, lobbyists and state and local officials, is a shadowy lobbying effort that may make it difficult to discern how hundreds of billions in federal money will be parceled out."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Jan/26/lobbyists_skirt_obama_s_earmark_ban.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
