Earmarks distraction

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Rep. Jeff Flake and Sen. John McCain of Arizona are the chief proponents of the distraction issue of "earmarks," aka pork barrel spending by the federal government. If you listen to these charlatans tell the story they would have you believe that by eliminating earmarks we can balance the federal budget. This, of course, is pure bullshit.

Let's look at some facts on Earmarks | OurFuture.org:

Compared to the total federal budget, earmarks are a drop in the bucket. During the last election, the John McCain campaign—which repeatedly raised concerns about earmarks—conceded that cutting all earmarks would save only $18 billion of the then-$3 trillion federal budget . [Reuters, Infoplease] The value of all earmarks combined equals about one-half of one percent of federal spending.

* * *

Republicans are behind the exponential growth of earmarks. In 1994, just before Republicans took control of Congress, there were only 1,300 earmarks enacted, totaling about $7.8 billion. By 2006, the last year of Republican control, there were almost 10,000 earmarks, costing taxpayers $29 billion. After Democrats regained control of Congress in November 2006 the total cost of earmarks was cut by nearly half, to about $17 billion. [Citizens Against Government Waste] And the Economic Recovery Act in February 2009 contained no earmarks at all.

Even Senator McCain has supported earmarks. In 2006, McCain cosponsored a bill earmarking $10 million for the Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona. In 2003, he wrote and passed an earmark to buy property around the Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. [PolitiFact] Similarly, as mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin hired a lobbyist to secure millions of dollars in federal earmarks, and as governor of Alaska she supported the infamous $450 million “bridge to nowhere.” [Los Angeles Times]

Republicans continue to use slight-of-hand to distract voters with "earmarks." The word "earmarks" itself has become dog-whistle code to rile up conservatives who are easily manipulated by such code words.

The Arizona Daily Star fact-checks a recent New York Times story that got its facts wrong. Giffords' earmark for wind tunnel is questioned:

When U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords joined other House Democrats in March with a pledge to limit earmark requests to nonprofit and public entities only, it was hailed as a step toward reforming one part the oft-politicized federal budget process.

But a few months later, the Southern Arizona congresswoman has been identified, along with several of her colleagues, for requesting federal funding for nonprofit groups that then just pass the money on to a private company.

Giffords was featured with nine other representatives in a New York Times story earlier this week saying many Democrats, or their earmark beneficiaries, have found a way around the ban by funneling the money through a nonprofit group.

Adopted because of repeated scandals over wasteful spending – the bridges to nowhere and expensive pet projects like a water taxi service – the ban was intended to help eliminate earmark abuses.

Critics say spending on earmarks, which added $16 billion to the federal budget last year [$13 billion less than when the GOP was in control, and many of these are still GOP earmarks], diverts money from higher priorities, typically do not require competitive bids and are often directed to experimental research that will never be used.

In Giffords' case, the issue is with a $7 million request for a Hypersonic Wind Tunnel. The request came from the University of Arizona and would indirectly benefit publicly traded Raytheon Missile Systems, the Times said. [I will come back to this point below.]

Giffords said she's always made an exception to the "no earmark requests for for-profit companies" for Raytheon because it's the largest employer in her district.

Let's stop right here for a moment. The Arizona Daily Star annually publishes its "Star 200" report of the major employers of Southern Arizona. From the April 11. 2010 report:

1. Raytheon Missile Systems [Defense contractor]

2. University of Arizona

3. State of Arizona

4. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base

5. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

6. Tucson Unified School District

7. U.S. Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca

8. City of Tucson

'9. Carondolet Health Network

10. Tohono O'odham Nation

Eight of the top ten employers in Southern Arizona are government employers. Carondolet receives medicare/medicaid payments from the government and Wal-Mart certainly benefits from the prescription drug Medicare Part D and foodstamps programs. So when Republicans talk about shrinking the size of government, in reality they are talking about reducing the size of Southern Arizona's major employers and throwing people out of work.

Now back to the thrust of the Times article, i.e., that Raytheon Missile Systems would indirectly benefit from the University of Arizona "earmark." Uhm, we're talking "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" here again:

The only role Raytheon had in the project was to help identify the need for it, said Shay Stautz, assistant vice president for federal relations at the UA.

Stautz made the earmark request of Giffords, and says there will be no pass-through of federal funds to the aerospace engineering company in Tucson.

"The money will come to the UA for construction of a wind tunnel on our campus. Raytheon helped identify the need for it, and will pay to use it," Stautz said.

He categorized Raytheon as a community user, and said the project would help foster collaboration between the university and the industry.

So the Times story using GOP talking points on earmarks has been debunked by the Star. Raytheon is a Defense contractor that derives nearly all of its income from federal Defense contracts anyway, so what was the point the Times wanted to make? That Raytheon may incidentally derive a benefit from the University of Arizona research? For which Raytheon will have to pay?

Taxpayers for Common Sense has a breakdown of earmarks in the current Congress. http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/041210rb1.pdf Here are the top earmark recipients in the Senate and the House:

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) are deceased. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) lost in the GOP primary to retain his seat. Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) is retiring.