tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7250671172105117172024-03-13T15:08:10.398-07:00Cheese Factories on the MoonCheese Factories on the Moon provides critical commentary on the topic of congressional appropriations earmarks. Scott Frisch and Sean Kelly--both Professors of political science at California State University Channel Islands--attempt to turn the debate about earmarks on its head. Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-41943767979382148682013-01-22T11:27:00.000-08:002013-01-22T11:27:53.089-08:00If the Narrative Fits...<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The assumption is that member of Congress are self-interested, greedy, obsessed with reelection and usually corrupt. Earmark coverage fits within that narrative.</i> <a href="http://www.cheesefactoriesonthemoon.com/" target="_blank"><u>Cheese Factories on the Moon</u></a>, page 104)</blockquote>
Pet peeve. Media coverage of politics--but especially earmarks--fails to provide sufficient context for readers more often than not.<br />
<br />
When the facts "confirm" the narrative why bother with context?<br />
<br />
Case in point: a <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/former-rep-steven-rothman-d-nj.html" target="_blank">story</a> published last week by the Center for Responsive Politics. Janie Boschma reports that former House Appropriations Committee member Steve Rothman will join a Newark law firm that lobbies on behalf of the defense industry.<br />
<br />
Boschma employs the "revolving door" metaphor to highlight Rothman's behavior as particularly objectionable. <br />
<br />
Rothman served on the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations and Boschma treads the familiar link between campaign contributions and "legislative favors." <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...the defense industry is one Rothman knows well. Among his top defense contributors during his 14-year House career were BAE Systems, $42,300; General Dynamics, $35,000; Lockheed Martin, $33,500; Boeing, $32,000; Honeywell International, $28,000; and Finmeccanica SpA, $24,000. Altogether, the defense sector donated $277,850 to Rothman during his tenure.</blockquote>
That <i>is</i> a lot of money. What the author does not tell you is this: $277,850 represents 2.4% of the campaign money that Rothman raised during his 14-year career in Congress. A look at CRP's own <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00008619&newMem=N" target="_blank">database</a> reveals that Rothman raised $684,950 from transportation and public sector unions over the same period, almost two-and-a-half times the money he raised from defense interests.<br />
<br />
And then a turn to the dramatic, Boschma notes the <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...remarkable nexus between budgetary earmarks by Rothman and 11 other members of the subcommittee and campaign contributions...In 2007, Rothman teamed up with Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) to earmark $1.5 million in the 2008 budget for Frontier Performance Polymers to research lightweight packaging for military gear.</blockquote>
Once again, $1.5 million <i>is </i>a lot of money. But in 2008 Rothman, according to the CRP database, was able to earmark $13.6 million, mostly in the defense area. CRP could not link most of his earmarks to <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/earmarks.php?fy=FY08&cid=N00008619&cycle=2008" target="_blank">campaign contributions</a>. Of the 19 earmarks they identify they link <i>two </i>to campaign contributions.<br />
<br />
That is about 1 in 10. A "remarkable nexus;" really?<br />
<br />
What does Frontier Performance Polymers do? It seeks to <a href="http://www.frontierpolymer.com/Innovation.htm" target="_blank">lessen the weight</a> of military ammunition to save weight for purposes of transportation and lightening the load for members of the military in the field. One may or may not think that is a legitimate use of federal funds, but readers deserve to judge based on the facts, not the implicit assumption that Rothman and Frelinghuysen routinely flush taxpayer dollars down the drain. <br />
<br />
<br />
I do not know Steve Rothman (or Rodney Frelinghuysen). I have never met him. I have never lived in New Jersey. I am not a lobbyist. I have never worked in the defense industry. I am just a lowly college professor on the West Coast. Maybe Rothman is guilty of some wrong-doing; I do not know.<br />
<br />
It is not my purpose to defend Mr. Rothman or this earmark.<br />
<br />
But I have some advice (<i>source</i>: <u>Cheese Factories on the Moon</u>)<i> </i>to offer to Ms. Boschma and other reporters when it comes to earmarks:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Take the time to understand the process;</li>
<li>Try to understand individual earmarks;</li>
<li>Provide context;</li>
<li>Do not overgeneralize, and;</li>
<li>Be careful: Correlation does not equal causation.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<i>--Sean Kelly</i><br />
<br />
<br />Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-76941023528109733852013-01-11T09:04:00.000-08:002013-01-11T09:06:10.603-08:00Roll Out the Barrel (We'll Have a Barrel of Funds)<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
More than a few commentators have <a href="http://cheesefactoriesonthemoon.blogspot.com/2013/01/earmarks-emerging-from-shadows.html" target="_blank">weighed in</a> recently suggesting that perhaps it is time to consider bringing back earmarks. Considering the legislative constipation that is gripping Congress it could not hurt.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fm72EnkxfSA/UPBDf3_S1SI/AAAAAAAAAe0/_7mLsTioWEs/s1600/public-law-congress.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fm72EnkxfSA/UPBDf3_S1SI/AAAAAAAAAe0/_7mLsTioWEs/s200/public-law-congress.jpg" width="200" /></a>Bloomberg Businessweek is the latest to <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/earmarks-the-reluctant-case-for-ending-the-ban" target="_blank">float the idea</a> that earmarks might provide some impetus for Congress: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Political hacks used to say pork was the political grease that
lubricated legislative deals. Only now do we see how true that was.
Would it really be so terrible to reintroduce some congressionally
sanctioned bribery? That would let members lay claim to the odd million
in the interest of striking a deal worth much more. </div>
</blockquote>
We are loathe to think of ourselves as "hacks" (most of our contemporaries probably think we are), but the sentiment is sound.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The simple fact of the matter is this: The easiest vote to cast in Congress is NO. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is especially true when legislation does not contain the promise of something of import for a member of Congress and his or her constituents. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>If members of Congress can vote NO repeatedly and without consequence it should be no surprise that Congress fails to act on most all important issues.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>A Case in Point </b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Labor, Health and Human Services bill is perhaps the
most difficult of the appropriations bills to pass. It contains funding for a
variety of programs that are opposed by conservative Republicans, and contains
provisions on hot-button social issues like abortion and stem cell research.
Using earmarks and other forms of persuasion the Republican leadership was able
to piece together a majority in support of the House version of the Fiscal Year
2006 Labor-H Appropriations bill. The House passed their version of the bill by
a vote of <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll321.xml">250 yeas to 151
nays</a>; 206 Republicans and 44 Democrats voted for the bill while 10
Republicans, 140 Democrats, and 1 independent voted against the bill. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On the Senate side the bill was passed by a vote of <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00281">94-3</a>,
and the House and Senate met in conference to reconcile the differences between
the two versions of the bill. A decision was made in conference to remove
$1 billion dollars in earmarks from the bill in favor of increased funding for
the National Institutes of Health, and other initiatives favored by Senators
Spectre (R-PA) and Harkin (D-IA), leaders of the Senate subcommittee.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
When the bill returned to the House the Conference Report on
the bill was defeated in the House <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll598.xml">209 yeas to 224 nays</a>.
This time 22 Republicans voted with 201 Democrats (all voting Democrats) and 1
independent to reject the bill. In all, 85 members who had previously supported
the bill in the House changed their votes when the bill returned to the House
floor from Conference. The one major difference between the original
House version and the Conference version was the $1 billion dollars in earmarks
that were removed from the Conference Report. Stripping the earmarks <span style="color: black;">upset</span> the delicate balance necessary to pass a
controversial bill.<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">In
2012 the House didn't even consider the FY 2013 LHHS bill on the floor-- the
Appropriations Committee could not even vote out a bill out of committee.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">It ha<span style="font-size: small;">s been years since Congress passed all of the <span style="font-size: small;">Appropriations bills following regular order. Republican House leaders have resorted to omnibus and <span style="font-size: small;">"mini<span style="font-size: small;">bus" bill<span style="font-size: small;">s and<span style="font-size: small;"> continuing resolutions to fund government<span style="font-size: small;">. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Forget<span style="font-size: small;"> authorizing legislation. Congress is all but impotent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Perhaps adding a little fiber to the diet might help? </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span> <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-64979304662417117932013-01-09T11:37:00.000-08:002013-01-09T11:37:39.895-08:00Earmarks Emerging from the ShadowsBy almost any measure the 112th Congress was the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/04/goodbye-and-good-riddance-112th-congress/" target="_blank">least productive</a> in several generations, perhaps in the history of the institution. According to a <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/congress-somewhere-below-cockroaches-traffic-jams-and-nickleback-in-americans-esteem.html" target="_blank">recent poll</a> public approval of Congress is only 9%. Public Policy Polling "found that found is that Congress is less popular than cockroaches, traffic jams, and even <i>Nickelback</i>."<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9ZOU2yNz2zQ/UO3FS19S2bI/AAAAAAAAAeY/j72zIueUCsk/s1600/Nickleback.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="100" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9ZOU2yNz2zQ/UO3FS19S2bI/AAAAAAAAAeY/j72zIueUCsk/s320/Nickleback.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Wow. People would rather listen to Nickleback than watch Congress? That <i>is</i> pathetic.<br />
<br />
These facts, combined with the beginning of the 113th Congress, have led several media outlets to look more closely at how Congress can improve its efficiency.<br />
<br />
For some the answer is: Earmarks.<br />
<br />
Over at <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/29/why-congress-cannot-operate-without-the-bribing-power-of-earmarks/" target="_blank">Forbes</a>, Rick Ungar links the failures of the last Congress to the decision to impose an earmark moratorium: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The moratorium on earmarks went into existence in February 2011. Since
that time we have seen some of the greatest legislative fails in the
history of the nation, highlighted by the debt ceiling fiasco of 2011,
the inability to pass a jobs bill, an ever-increasing vacancy rate in
the federal judiciary as one nominee after another is shelved and, of
course, the current fiscal cliff clunker that might be the most
embarrassing and damaging display of congressional incompetence of all.</blockquote>
NPR's All Things Considered ran a story asking <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/01/06/168745513/could-reviving-earmarks-get-congress-moving-again?sc=emaf" target="_blank">"Could Reviving Earmarks Get Congress Going Again?</a>" Quoting the ever-colorful former-Senator Alan Simpson highlights the fact that earmarks are a necessary component of the congressional process: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[Lyndon Johnson] came up to Pop one time and said, 'Milward, what can I
do for you? I need your vote ... surely you must have a dam or
something out there you need in Wyoming,' " Simpson tells Jacki Lyden,
host of weekends on<i> All Things Considered</i>. "I'm not talking about purity; I'm just talking about reality."</blockquote>
At Slate <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/01/fiscal_cliff_legislative_earmarks_pork_and_backroom_deal_making_was_ugly.html" target="_blank">Matthew Iglesias</a> points out that the fiscal cliff highlights the fact that earmarks help members of Congress make difficult decisions:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That’s not to say we should pine for a return to bribery and graft, but
watching the prolonged fiscal cliff deadlock (and other Obama-era
legislative battles) it was hard not to miss a little old-fashioned
earmarking and pork.</blockquote>
We would be remiss (actually we would just be modest and who wants to be modest?) if we did not point out that we predicted from the beginning that the earmark moratorium would be damaging, and that we pointed out that the moratorium was an <a href="http://cheesefactoriesonthemoon.blogspot.com/2011/10/epic-fail-earmark-moratorium-solved.html" target="_blank">epic fail</a> months ago.<br />
<br />
Since the 113th Congress will also observe the earmark moratorium we predict continued dysfunction.<br />
<br />
To be sure congressional dysfunction goes beyond the earmark moratorium (e.g., exceptionally high levels of ideological extremity and partisanship), but in the absence of the salve of earmarks there is little else to lessen the friction and allow Congress to do the people's work. <br />
<br />
But at least people are talking openly about earmarks again, and that is a hopeful development.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-59490535357175001802012-06-18T15:37:00.000-07:002012-06-18T15:37:51.711-07:00Cheese Factories on The Inner Loop<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="http://www.voiceamerica.com/content/images/host_images/011198/Marlowe-show-description.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="68" src="http://www.voiceamerica.com/content/images/host_images/011198/Marlowe-show-description.jpg" width="90" /></a>The Inner Loop is a new internet radio <a href="http://www.voiceamerica.com/show/2104/the-inner-loop" target="_blank">program </a>on <a href="http://www.voiceamerica.com/" target="_blank">VoiceAmerica</a>. It features two long-time Washington insiders--Howard Marlowe and Michael Willis--who are serious about helping people to understand how "really works."</div><div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">The <a href="http://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/62534/the-inner-loop" target="_blank">episode</a> for June 18, 2012 focuses on earmarks. The program features an all-star cast including a discussion of Cheese Factories on the Moon, former Appropriator <a href="http://www.klgates.com/james-t-walsh/" target="_blank">Jim Walsh</a>, and <a href="http://www.taxpayer.net/about.php?action=staff#steve" target="_blank">Steve Ellis</a> from <a href="http://www.taxpayer.net/index.php" target="_blank">Taxpayers for Common Sense</a>. Our segment begins at the five minute mark.</div><br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
<br />
<embed flashvars="image=http://www.voiceamerica.com/content/images/host_images/011198/Marlowe-player-wide.jpg&file=http://hwcdn.net/t9f2y9d8/cds/business/011198/marlowe061812.mp3&autostart=false&plugins=sharing-2&sharing.link=http://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/62534/the-inner-loop&dock=true" height="345" src="http://www.voiceamerica.com/content/swfs/jw-player-licensed-5.2.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="574"></embed>Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-49135612527514142292012-06-15T09:08:00.000-07:002012-06-15T09:08:23.412-07:00Things are heating up in the Cheese FactoryIn his review for the Spring 2012 issue of the political science journal <i>Congress and the Presidency</i> (39:2, 219-221) Bruce Oppenheimer (Vanderbilt University), one of the giants of congressional studies, calls <i>Cheese Factories on the Moon: Why Earmarks are Good for American Democracy</i> "an easy-to-read, entertaining, and stimulating book...a heroic challenge to what is the nearly universally accepted wisdom about the evils of congressional earmarks...a valuable counterpoint to those who exaggerate and misconstrue the nature of earmarks."Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-91091970777333516122012-03-31T12:26:00.000-07:002012-03-31T12:26:06.725-07:00Show Us the MoneyCritics of earmarks frequently point to the presumed <i>quid pro quo</i> between earmarks and campaign contributions. They <a href="http://cheesefactoriesonthemoon.blogspot.com/2010/06/earmarks-and-campaign-contributions.html">argue</a> that members of Congress pursue earmarks in order to rake in campaign contributions from lobbyists who are scrambling to get earmarks for their clients.<br />
<br />
If this is true then one would expect that members of the Appropriations Committees would be raising piles of cash. Membership on Appropriations should be the most valuable--or one of the most valuable--committee assignments a member could achieve from the perspective of campaign contributions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/">This American Life</a> is airing a program this week about <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office">money and politics</a>. Part of the program focuses on this question: Which committees are most valuable in terms of campaign contributions? <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/people/ldrutman/">Lee Drutman</a>, a Senior Fellow at the <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/">Sunlight Foundation</a> (and fellow political scientist), crunched the numbers (covering multiple congresses and going back into the 1990s) for <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/">Planet Money</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Is an assignment to Appropriations number 1?</b> No, that honor goes to Ways and Means. OK. Well that makes sense. Targeted tax provisions (tax earmarks) are worth a fortune--millions, even billions--to well-represented and well-financed corporations.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wXT-58lN8ao/T3dESXxJDnI/AAAAAAAAAMw/0-XSvNzlhsA/s1600/Contributions+and+Committee+Assignments.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wXT-58lN8ao/T3dESXxJDnI/AAAAAAAAAMw/0-XSvNzlhsA/s200/Contributions+and+Committee+Assignments.jpg" width="177" /></a><b>Surely Appropriations is number 2. </b>No, that honor goes to the Financial Services Committee. Hmm. Well, OK. That makes sense, they write legislation that influences the bottom line of the financial services industry, the largest component of the American economy.<br />
<br />
<b>Well, you know, Appropriations is number 3, right? </b>Sorry, that honor goes to the Energy and Commerce Committee. Again, this makes sense since the jurisdiction of the committee is the broadest in the House, covering everything from oil and gas to health care. Many, many corporations have legislative interests that fall within the purview of the committee.<br />
<br />
Is it surprising that Appropriations is not in the top three; that it falls in the middle of the distribution? Not really. Critics of earmarks have been loud in their denunciations of earmarks, and shrewd in creating the <i>quid pro quo</i> narrative, but they have been (and are) wrong. They have diverted attention from the more important and less visible legislative activities in Congress that are infinitely more <a href="http://cheesefactoriesonthemoon.blogspot.com/2012/01/political-misdirection.html">costly</a> to American taxpayers.<br />
<br />
In the meantime earmark foes have robbed our representatives of the ability to <a href="http://cheesefactoriesonthemoon.blogspot.com/2010/11/op-ed-on-earmarks-in-national-journal.html">counterbalance</a> the power of the executive branch to spend money by successfully hounding congressional leaders for an <a href="http://cheesefactoriesonthemoon.blogspot.com/2011/10/epic-fail-earmark-moratorium-solved.html">earmark moratorium</a>. Furthermore, absent earmarks the legislative process has almost completely stalled. After draining the oil from the engine is anyone surprised when the engine seizes up during the cross-country trip?<br />
<br />
With the legislative process stalled, and Congress pressured to pass authorizations and appropriations for infrastructure and water projects, it will become increasingly clear that earmarks are critical for Congress to fulfill its constitutional role.Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0Camarillo, CA, USA34.2163937 -119.037602334.1857112 -119.1132558 34.247076199999995 -118.9619488tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-11927566073212140462012-01-06T10:21:00.000-08:002012-01-06T14:41:23.490-08:00Political Misdirection<br />
<span style="color: black;">Just before the Iowa Caucuses, with Rick Santorum surging in the polls, Rick Perry went on the <a href="http://cheesefactoriesonthemoon.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-battle-of-ricks-earmarks-return-as.html" target="_blank">attack </a>criticizing Santorum's record on earmarks. Now neck-and-neck with Santorum in <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2012_south_carolina_republican_primary" target="_blank">South Carolina</a>, the Romney campaign has torn a page from the Perry playbook.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-R2WCMOvHL8I/Twc7IT40KrI/AAAAAAAAAME/PDteCaDBesQ/s1600/John-Mccain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="125" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-R2WCMOvHL8I/Twc7IT40KrI/AAAAAAAAAME/PDteCaDBesQ/s200/John-Mccain.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="color: black;"><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/john-mccain-continues-to-do-mitt-romneys-dirty-work-hits-rick-santorum-on-earmark-spending/" target="_blank">Romney has enlisted</a> long-time earmark critic John McCain to likewise attack Santorum on earmarks. Invoking the names of South Carolina's two Senators McCain noted "I think [earmarks are] wrong for America and so does Sen. [Jim] DeMint and so does Sen. Lindsey Graham who have been staunch fighters against earmark and pork barrel spending." (The use of Graham's name is dubious given Graham's support for earmarks and his very public <a href="http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/news/40627-graham-may-seek-earmark-for-port-deepening-as-last-resort" target="_blank">feud</a> with DeMint over an earmark for the port at Charleston.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Conjuring up one of his well-worn claims McCain argued on the campaign trail yesterday that "...earmark spending is the gateway to corruption...Sen. Santorum and I have a strong disagreement, a strong disagreement that he believes that earmark and pork barrel projects were good for America."</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A9-sTYj-gqQ/Twc7eLmxeoI/AAAAAAAAAMM/058rRmZhhIo/s1600/three+card+monte.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="97" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A9-sTYj-gqQ/Twc7eLmxeoI/AAAAAAAAAMM/058rRmZhhIo/s200/three+card+monte.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="color: black;">Misdirection takes advantage of the cognitive limits of the human mind. Typically we can only focus on one thing at a time. Misdirection works by focusing our attention on one thing, something likely to grab our attention, while a more meaningful objective is achieved unnoticed by the spectator. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Political misdirection uses the same principle; distract the public with an issue of dubious policy importance like earmarks while achieving larger policy goals. While the public is frothing over earmarks much more costly tax loopholes are woven into the tax code for the benefit of favored constituencies (with the added benefit of then decrying the tax code as too complicated and filled with loopholes).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">An example came to our attention by way of an NPR <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist" target="_blank">story</a> that aired this morning.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">A recent <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1375082" target="_blank">study</a> University of Kansas professors Raquel Alexander, Stephen Mazza, and Susan Scholz examines the "return on investment" of lobbying expenditures on the <i>American Jobs Creation Act</i> of 2004. The <i>AJCA </i>created an amnesty for U.S. corporations with foreign earnings that were held off shore. Corporations could "repatriate" those funds at a substantial tax discount (15% on earnings compared to the 35% tax rate on the earnings). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Alexander, Mazza, and Scholz estimate that companies spent about $288 million lobbying for the <i>AJCA</i> reaping tax savings of $62.5 billion; that is, for every $1 a corporation invested in lobbying on <i>AJCA </i>their average return on investment was $220.</span><br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: black;">This </span></i><u><span style="color: black;">single tax loophole</span></u><i><span style="color: black;"> in 2004 cost about four times all of the earmark expenditures for that same year. </span></i><span style="color: black;">A quick search of <i>The New York Times</i> for 2004 reveals almost 100 stories about earmarks and "pork barrel projects" and only one story about the $62.5 billion <i>American Jobs Creation Act</i>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">We are not suggesting that lobbying is corrupt. We are not suggesting that the <i>AJCA</i> was bad policy. We are not suggesting that the members of Congress who supported the <i>AJCA </i>were corrupt. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">What we are suggesting is that earmark critics like McCain create a tempest surrounding earmarks while more fundamental and costly issues get little or no attention. Likewise, when it comes to the Republican Presidential nomination what stories about Romney are being <a href="http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120106/FREE/120109966" target="_blank">ignored</a> while the electorate and the media are distracted with earmarks?</span>Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-20739331828467204112012-01-05T09:06:00.000-08:002012-01-05T09:06:36.763-08:00CHOICE Review of Cheese Factories<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qZLxJ1Cqzxo/TwXYTWlBgLI/AAAAAAAAALs/91FCS7kXZ0Q/s1600/CHOICE+Cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qZLxJ1Cqzxo/TwXYTWlBgLI/AAAAAAAAALs/91FCS7kXZ0Q/s200/CHOICE+Cover.jpg" width="154" /></a></div>Scrolling through my (Sean) Facebook news feed this morning I was surprised to come upon <i>CHOICE</i> magazine's <a href="http://cro2.org/default.aspx?page=reviewdisplay&pid=3702681">Top Review</a> for the day: <i>Cheese Factories on the Moon</i>. The reviewer recommends <i>Cheese Factories</i> as<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span id="review">"...a worthwhile read for anyone interested in earmarks, the federal deficit, and the role of Congress and congressional spending decisions in the larger government/political picture."</span></blockquote><i>CHOICE </i>rates <i>Cheese Factories</i> "Highly Recommended." Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-13590857606822007842011-12-30T05:00:00.000-08:002011-12-30T05:00:10.646-08:00In the 'Battle of the Ricks' Earmarks Return as a Campaign Issue<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0" height="212" id="flashObj" style="clear: left; float: left;" width="286"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=1352319636001&playerID=19407224001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdQtJLv7zbMPiBGChHKnGYSG&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1352319636001&playerID=19407224001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdQtJLv7zbMPiBGChHKnGYSG&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="286" height="212" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>A Rick Perry sponsored ad airing in Iowa attacks Rick Santorum for his record on appropriations earmarks. This conincides with an apparent Santorum <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204632204577128854207014574.html">surge</a> in Iowa.<br />
<br />
Perry highlights Santorum's vote in favor of the transportation funding bill that included the infamous "bridge to nowhere" project. Perry claims that Santorum was responsible for $1 billion in earmarks over his 16 year congressional career.<br />
<br />
The Perry ad includes an audio clip of Santorum touting his earmarks: "I have had a lot of earmarks...In fact I'm very proud of all the earmarks I've put in bills."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-To6upHvqMuQ/Tvy7DBbWuYI/AAAAAAAAALI/j8_14U12bDk/s1600/Earmark+Queen.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="153" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-To6upHvqMuQ/Tvy7DBbWuYI/AAAAAAAAALI/j8_14U12bDk/s200/Earmark+Queen.bmp" width="200" /></a></div>By attacking Santorum for earmarking Perry is unearthing a tactic he used <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/26/perry-enlists-abba-in-texas-primary/">successfully</a> against Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the Texas GOP Gubernatorial primary. During that campaign the Perry campaign produced a video/song based on ABBA's "Dancing Queen" titled "Earmark Queen" to criticize Hutchinson for her earmarks. (The <a href="http://www.dallasblog.com/201002261006194/dallas-blog/sen.-hutchison-earmark-queen-song-hits-airwaves.html">lyrics </a>are here; the video was quickly removed from the web due to potential copyright infringement).<br />
<br />
Earmarks are a convenient device that can be used to highlight the "Washington insider" status of politicians like Hutchinson and Perry's current foe, Santorum. Perry and Santorum are competing for many of the same religious conservatives, and Perry would likely benefit from Santorum's defectors. Perry might decide to employ the same tactic against Michelle Bachman who also has appeal to religious conservatives and, like Santorum, can be tied to at least one <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/12/despite-critics-who-claim-waste-michele-bachmann-supports-690-million-bridge-project-in-district/">specific earmark</a>-like project. Bachmann's latest <a href="http://earlyreturns.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/early-returns-20/53-post-gazette-staff/3793-bachmann-campaign-manager-defected-for-a-lot-of-money">problems</a> in Iowa may be enough to obviate an attack on her.<br />
<br />
Earmarks are an easy device for governors to employ. They do not have a direct hand in generating earmarks, allowing them to distance themselves from the projects, while benefiting from the results. Without a doubt Texas was a big winner in the earmark race. According to <a href="http://taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=2789&category=&type=Project">Taxpayers for Common Sense</a> data for 2010 <i>alone</i>, Texas benefited from $1.9 billion in earmarks.<br />
<br />
In a single year Rick Perry's state received almost twice the amount in earmarks that Rick Santorum generated in <i>his entire 16 year congressional career</i>. But, like Sarah Palin before him ("I said 'thanks but no thanks' to that bridge to nowhere"), Perry can claim that he opposes earmarks because his fingerprints are not directly associated with the earmarks, even though his state was clearly a beneficiary.<br />
<br />
One can only wonder how much the "Texas Economic Miracle" benefited from the investment of federal dollars, including those that went to the state via earmarks.Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-1177325701519256902011-10-25T09:51:00.000-07:002011-10-25T09:51:29.438-07:00That's an Earmark?!In an desperate attempt to remain relevant in a world without earmarks Citizens Against Government Waste is releasing reports of "earmarks" in appropriations bills for FY 2012.<br />
<br />
When the Republicans regained the majority in the House they reinstituted a ban on earmarks. The Democratically controlled Senate resisted, but eventually relented and adopted the same approach. Watchdog groups that raised money by getting people riled up over earmarks began getting nervous, no doubt; what would fuel their fundraising pleas?<br />
<br />
It is a good thing that they define earmarks so broadly as to encompass any change in spending over the president's budget request. While CAGW lauds the Senate for reducing overall spending they accuse the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee including 16 earmarks in this year's bill. According to their <a href="http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2011/cagw-releases-analysis-of.html">release</a> analyzing the Senate Labor-H bill:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The following are examples of pork added by the Senate to the Labor/HHS bill:</span></div><ul style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><li><span style="font-size: x-small;">$111,779,000 for programs to prevent substance abuse.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">$42,914,000 for the Teacher Quality Partnership program (TQP). A March 2011 Government Accountability Office <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdf">report</a> that analyzed duplication within the federal government found that the TQP is one of 82 redundant teacher training programs. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">$14,918,000 for rural hospital flexibility grants. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">$6,990,000 for the Rural Community Facilities program.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">$998,000 for the Training for Realtime Writers program, which provides grants to institutions of higher education to create programs to train closed caption writers. </span></li>
</ul></blockquote></blockquote>In another <a href="http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2011/cagw-releases-analysis-of-1.html">release</a> they claim that the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill contains 7 earmarks, including increased spending on rail projects. <br />
<br />
Imagine that: The Senate has the audacity to disagree with the president. You would think that the Senate thought of itself as equal to the president! How dare they.<br />
<br />
We are being sarcastic, of course.<br />
<br />
It is worth pointing out that prior to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 the Congress--consistent with the US Constitution--had sole responsibility for constructing the federal budget. The Budget Act directed the executive to propose a budget but, since it is not a Constitutional Amendment, it did not rob the Congress of the "power of the purse," it did give the executive a handy tool for shaping the budget debate.<br />
<br />
We oppose the earmark moratorium. We argue that the moratorium has <a href="http://cheesefactoriesonthemoon.blogspot.com/2011/10/epic-fail-earmark-moratorium-solved.html">achieved nothing</a>.<br />
<br />
These spending proposals are not earmarks. They are Congress asserting its Constitutional prerogative to have a hand in deciding the policy priorities of the country. We need to be careful. We may find one day that CAGW has defined Congress out of existence.Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-57892065866227399222011-10-11T11:33:00.000-07:002012-06-28T09:32:15.911-07:00Epic Fail: The Earmark Moratorium Solved NothingDuring the 2010 election season criticism of earmarks reached a fever pitch. Candidates running on the political right declared that earmarks were the source of most of our evils.<br />
<br />
Arch earmark opponent <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253028/earmark-myths-and-realities-sen-tom-coburn">Senator Tom Coburn</a> cast earmarks as a "gateway" to big spending. Following the 2010 elections Senator John McCain, a long time foe of earmarks, <a href="http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=5683f7c5-b45b-7df2-a29d-d26666900893&Region_id=&Issue_id=d1a878d9-f16c-4570-b402-9d1bc3fe6ab9">said</a> that <span class="st">“The time has come for Congress to put a stop to the<span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><i>corrupt practice</i> of <i>earmarking</i> once and for all.”</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
</div>
<blockquote style="font-family: inherit;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Critics of earmarks argued that eliminating earmarks would be a step toward balancing the budget and restoring confidence in American political institutions. As it turns out eliminating earmarks has achieved neither objective. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gSKM1337T4o/TpRw7Oqr79I/AAAAAAAAAKc/l6IMzPl1aRY/s1600/Percent+Government+Waste.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="106" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gSKM1337T4o/TpRw7Oqr79I/AAAAAAAAAKc/l6IMzPl1aRY/s200/Percent+Government+Waste.png" width="200" /></a>According to a new <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/149543/americans-say-federal-gov-wastes-half-every-dollar.aspx">Gallup poll</a> “Americans now estimate that the federal government wastes 51 cents on the dollar, a new high since Gallup first began asking the question in 1979.” This is the first time since Gallup began asking this question back in the late-1970s that the estimated percentage of waste exceeded 50%.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So the budget deficit remains despite the moratorium on earmarks. And people are now convinced that government wastes <i>more</i> money than they thought when earmarks were included in appropriations bills. Nice work.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have long argued that the earmark hysteria was concocted to promote the political fortunes of certain <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=725067117210511717#editor/target=post;postID=7507257135070280927">politicians</a>, and increase contributions to "watchdog groups." On numerous occasions we have argued that the brouhaha surrounding earmarks was mostly about generating soundbites. This blog and our book <a href="http://www.cheesefactoriesonthemoon.com/"><i>Cheese Factories on the Moon</i></a> are aimed at promoting a full understanding of earmarks.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now comes a news release from watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense in which they finally admit that the bluster about earmarks was more about generating public ire than promoting serious budget savings. In a recent <a href="http://www.taxpayer.net/projects.php?action=view&category=&type=Project&proj_id=4896">release</a> the organization says, “... congressional earmarks were $15.9 billion in fiscal year 2010 -- less than half of 1 percent of the budget. Good sound bites don't always equal big savings.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This political donnybrook over earmarks would be unremarkable but for one fact: <i>The elimination of earmarks is bad for American democracy.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li><i> </i>In the absence of earmarks the Congress cedes considerable power over spending to the executive branch. This is contrary to American constitutional design and <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/tea-party-s-anti-earmark-crusade-gives-more-power-to-president-obama-20101117">strengthens the hand of congressional Republicans'</a> arch foe Barack Obama. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The moratorium robs the ability of members of Congress to adapt national programs to address the unique problems and concerns of their constituents. It is left to the bureaucrats in the executive branch to prioritize spending.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In the absence of earmarks Congress is unable to substitute its own judgement for that of the executive branch. We have pointed out here how projects like the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=725067117210511717#editor/target=post;postID=4603355213624074037">Predator Drone</a>, the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=725067117210511717#editor/target=post;postID=4430468902281585310">Pacific Tsunami Warning Center</a>, and other projects were pushed by Congress before they were adopted as good ideas by the executive branch.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In the coming months members of Congress will need to make painful decisions about future government spending. In the past earmarks served as the "spoonful of sugar" that helped soothe these bitter choices. In our system, which relies on compromise, earmarks made compromise easier to swallow. Congressional leaders no longer have this tool at their disposal. The earmark moratorium makes finding common ground much more difficult. </li>
</ul>
<ul></ul>
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3MHpS9bEfPw/TpR-F0_tjVI/AAAAAAAAAKk/iX1cf2EZBs4/s1600/McCain+Face+Palm.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3MHpS9bEfPw/TpR-F0_tjVI/AAAAAAAAAKk/iX1cf2EZBs4/s1600/McCain+Face+Palm.png" /></a>A strong Congress was a critical component of the Founders' institutional design. Granting the Congress the "power of the purse" was a conscious decision meant to bolster the power of Congress and promote the interests of the people through their elected representatives.<br />
<br />
The current moratorium has not delivered on its promises and is harmful to the Congress-centered nature of American democracy. As the kids say these days: Epic Fail.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /></div>Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-70832136034082532582011-07-08T13:46:00.000-07:002011-07-08T13:47:00.978-07:00Bi-Partisan Praise for Cheese Factories on the Moon<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> <span style="font-size: small;"><i style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cheese Factories on the</i></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Moon </i></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">is a</span><span style="font-size: small;"><i style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </i></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">refreshingly candid book...I chuckled, nodded affirmatively, and in a few instances disagreed. But it needed to be written..</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">.I will cite the book when I discuss the issue. --Representative Connie Morella (R-MD)</span>Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-67668773383005217182011-05-23T17:32:00.000-07:002011-05-23T17:32:51.696-07:00Praise for Cheese factories on the MoonWe received this via email over the weekend. We thought we'd share:<br />
<br />
"I've just finished reading 'Cheese Factories on the Moon.' You and Scott Frisch have successfully married the benefits of academic expertise and political experience...you have added an untold and necessary chapter to the big story about congressional appropriations. Without reservation, this book should be required reading for every course on Congress; it also should be on the desk of every media analyst in the country."<br />
<br />
Representative Glen Browder (D-AL)Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-75072571350702809272011-05-13T12:19:00.000-07:002011-05-13T12:19:20.035-07:00Jeff Flake: Giant Killer<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style> <![endif]--> <div class="MsoNormal">In 2008 arch-earmark-foe Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) initiated a full court press for his assignment to the Appropriations Committee. Supporters circulated an internet petition supporting his request. Despite a spirited fight, Flake was not assigned to the committee. He and his supporters attributed his failure to resistance from earmark defenders.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In the wake of the 2010 election, with the Republicans riding a wave of voter discontent fueled, in part, by disdain for earmarks, and with appropriators on their heels, Flake once again made a run at an appointment to the Appropriations Committee. Making his closing argument for an appointment in an Op-Ed in <i>The Washington Post</i> Flake argued that earmarks were distracting the Appropriations Committee from its role as guardian of the Treasury:</div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Those who view earmarking as an expression of the "congressional prerogative" sell Congress short of its preeminent role as the first branch of government. As the defenders of earmarking are fond of saying, earmarks represent less than 2 percent of all federal spending. Precisely! By focusing on a measly 2 percent of spending, we have given up effective oversight on the remaining 98 percent.</i>[1]</div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal">Flake argued that the committee, by focusing its efforts on earmarks, fails in the larger effort to closely scrutinize the more costly and more important expenditures. In the same Op-Ed he concluded that,</div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Without the earmark distraction, Congress can return to the deliberative process of authorization, appropriation and oversight, thus reining in spending abuses of the administration rather than simply piling on with spending abuses of our own.</i></div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"> In an Appropriations Committee oversight hearing on Wednesday Flake attacked the National Endowment for the Arts for making grants worth a few hundred thousand dollars to a mime company in San Francisco and supporting an accordion festival.[2] </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Those who supported Jeff Flake’s holy war on earmarks <i>should be</i> rolling their eyes, but we suspect they are not. Is this what Flake’s rebellion has become? Shifting the focus from a few <i>silly-sounding earmarks</i> to a few <i>silly-sounding federal grants</i>? Is this how Flake intended to wield the potent appropriations oversight power all along? </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Or, perhaps Flake intends to go through the federal budget with a very, very, very, very fine-toothed comb.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The other irony here is the claim by earmark foes that expenditures determined through competitive, peer-reviewed, bureaucratic processes are superior to earmarks. The mimes and accordionists were funded using the competitive bureaucratic process boosted by earmark critics, yet they produced silly-sounding expenditures.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The fact is that many specific government expenditures, taken in isolation, sound silly. Case in point: recently the Department of Defense released a request for bids to repair a Koi Fish Pond at Travis Air Force Base in California. That sounds pretty silly to us.[3] And when silly sounding expenditures are brought to their attention, the media takes the bait every time.<span> </span>But they miss the broader implications. In the debate over earmarks the media consistently reported on the silly-sounding earmarks; but they missed the larger debate about the congressional power of the purse and the ability of members of Congress to adapt broad federal programs to the needs of their states and districts. In this case the argument is not about a few silly-sounding grants, but whether the National Endowment for the Arts should continue to exist and receive funding. That is the argument on which the media should be reporting, and that is a debate that all Americans should have a voice in.<span> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Let’s be clear about the fiscal stakes.<span> </span>Mr. Flake is focusing attention on a couple of grants that amount to a few hundred thousand dollars.<span> </span>The total National Endowment for the Arts budget request for fiscal year 2012 is about $146 million, or less than one third of the amount this country spends on military bands in a year.[4]<span> </span>Elimination of the entire National Endowment for the Arts would not make a dent in a deficit of $1,480,000,000,000.<span> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">However, focusing the public’s attention on a few well chosen examples of “wasteful” spending will only contribute to creating the false impression that the budgetary imbalance is the result of wasteful spending and that balancing the federal budget can be easily accomplished. The public’s lack of understanding of the composition of the federal budget is well known, and it is easy to convince voters that silly spending is the root of our budgetary problems.<span> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Instead of focusing attention on the pittance we spend on mimes and accordion festivals, Mr. Flake might consider following Willie Sutton’s advice.<span> </span>When asked why he robbed banks, Sutton famously replied “because that is where the money is.”<span> </span>The money in the federal budget is in the Department of Defense, entitlement programs, and the flip side of earmarks, targeted tax breaks (known in Washington as tax expenditures).<span> </span>If Mr. Flake truly cares about addressing our fiscal imbalance, he would be best to look to these programs instead of continuing to garner media attention by highlighting alleged waste in minuscule programs, the elimination of which will do nothing to solve the problem, but will only serve to promote anti-government feeling among an already cynical American public.<span> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span> </span> </div><div class="MsoNormal">[1] Jeff Flake, “An earmark fight Congress doesn't need,” November 12, 2010. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111106060.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111106060.html</a> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">[2] Erik Wasson, “GOP blasts NEA grants to 'Frisco mimes, accordion festival” May 11, 2011 <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/160491-obama-arts-chief-grilled-at-house-appropriations-" target="_blank">http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/160491-obama-arts-chief-grilled-at-house-appropriations-</a> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">[3] Repair Coy (sic) Fish Pond, Solicitation Number: F3ZT911081A002-PondRepair, Agency: Department of the Air Force, Office: Air Mobility Command, Location: 60th CONS <a href="https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ec7591c232e932e108497c09c1e78b12&tab=core&_cview=1" target="_blank">https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ec7591c232e932e108497c09c1e78b12&tab=core&_cview=1</a> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">[4] Walter Pincus. “Defense Department spends $500 million to strike up the bands” <i>The Washington Post. </i>September 6, 2010. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090603018.html?sid=ST2010090603042">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090603018.html?sid=ST2010090603042</a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-91148093382340867492011-05-09T10:50:00.000-07:002011-05-09T12:35:35.194-07:00Earmarks for the ages…Long lost records from the Senate Appropriations Committee, in a story on the blog <a href="http://www.booktryst.com/2011/05/long-lost-us-senate-records-discovered.html">Booktryst</a>. The records, contained in bound volumes discovered by a Northern California rare book collector, cover the years 1870 through the early 1900s. According to Stephen Gertz:<br />
<blockquote><br />
<i>The ledgers, written almost exclusively in pen - both black and red ink – with some entries and notations in pencil, enumerate the annual appropriations for:</i><br />
<blockquote><i>I. Agriculture, Army, Fortifications, Pensions, Post-Office, 1870-1909.</i><br />
<i>II. Diplomatic, District of Columbia Appropriations.</i><br />
<i>III. Legislative Appropriations, 1870-1901.</i><br />
<i>IV. Military Academy, Naval Appropriations, 1870-1909.</i><br />
<i>V. Sundry Civil Appropriations, 1870-1901.</i></blockquote></blockquote><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DzGjDVEiCoI/TcW-1yuE2YI/AAAAAAAADtM/dahrtdYKYYk/s1600/Ledger_Page_2.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="217" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8mE0zqTsq5I/TcgoX6VZPqI/AAAAAAAAAGY/BUh9CdWvHY8/s320/Ledger_Page_2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Even a quick glance at the few high quality photos of individual pages at the Booktryst site reveals that earmarks are not a recent phenomenon. If one accepts the typical definition of an earmark (an expenditure targeted for a specific purpose in a specific location) then each page of these ledgers is replete with earmarks. Take for instance the provision on this page (right) for the Navy Yard at Mare Island, California (that’s a pretty specific location!). Among the specific expenditures indicated is a cottage for the electrician, navy yard roads, and a shed over the galvanizing plant (those are some pretty specific projects!).<br />
<br />
The moral of the story is that when money is appropriated it must be spent somewhere and it must be spent on something. From the beginning of the Republic Congress assumed its responsibility under Article I, section 9 of the constitution to appropriate funds. How did it accomplish this? By allocating geographic and project specific expenditures as is illustrated in these ledgers. Earmarks are not “new,” they are as old as the Republic and, practically speaking, necessary.<br />
<br />
The “criminalization” of earmarks by groups like Taxpayers for Common Sense and the media seriously undermines what was historically a congressional power aimed at vesting the “power of the purse” in the institution most directly accountable to the people. Advocates of banning earmarks are at odds with our Republican principles and, as these documents illustrate, at odds with our history.Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-46033552136240740372011-04-22T11:35:00.000-07:002011-04-22T12:29:08.458-07:00Oh the irony...<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6aCJQgtQDAs/TbHETqOSWNI/AAAAAAAAAGU/vLrradkx80E/s1600/predator-drone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="114" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6aCJQgtQDAs/TbHETqOSWNI/AAAAAAAAAGU/vLrradkx80E/s200/predator-drone.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Predator Drone: A flying earmark</td></tr>
</tbody></table>On April 21st President Obama authorized the use of the Predator Drone to aid NATO forces in their efforts in Libya. The pilotless drone is controlled remotely. The Predator and has proven useful in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan; it has become a weapon of choice for the US Military. According to Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs General James Cartwright:<br />
<blockquote>What [Predators] will bring that is unique to the conflict is their ability to get down lower, therefore to be able to get better visibility on targets that have started to dig themselves into defensive positions…They are uniquely suited for urban areas. [<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/us-drones-libya_n_852208.html">link to full story</a>]</blockquote><br />
Today media outlets are reporting that John McCain is in Libya. According to the <a href="http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/north/US-Senator-Visits-Libyan-Rebels-in-Benghazi-120439644.html">Voice of America</a> McCain’s visit is aimed at gaining recognition of the Libyan rebels, and encouraging the U.S. to take a larger role in the conflict. McCain is quoted saying:<br />
<blockquote>I came here to get an on the ground assessment of the situation….We are meeting with the [rebel transitional] council, we’re meeting with the military, we’re meeting with lots of people. The [rebel fighters] are my heroes.</blockquote><br />
By authorizing the use of Predators in the Libyan conflict Obama has, at least partially, granted McCain’s wish that the US provide more support for the rebels. Obama’s decision also made McCain’s trip possible by ensuring that the Senator is free from danger during his visit to Benghazi.<br />
<br />
The irony is that the Predator Drone began its life as an <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cheese-Factories-Moon-Earmarks-Democracy/dp/1594517312/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1296939015&sr=1-1"><i>earmark</i></a>, the kind of congressionally directed appropriation against which Senator McCain has led a holy war. McCain often challenged fellow Senators’ earmarks on the Senate floor. In fact, his antipathy toward earmarks was a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. <br />
<br />
Oh the irony: John McCain being protected in Libya by the robotic love-child of an <i>earmark</i>.Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-20553294540328788402011-03-23T10:08:00.000-07:002011-03-23T11:04:33.355-07:00Tsunamis and Robots and Earmarks (oh my!)The Japanese earthquake and resulting tsunami devastated the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant two weeks ago. Lacking power to the cooling systems, concern about the integrity of the nuclear rods is in question. Repair crews dare not risk approaching the cooling ponds to assess the situation for fear of radiation exposure, while low levels of radiation are beginning to affect the region. Without extensive repairs the power plant could turn that part of Japan into a virtual wasteland.<br />
<br />
Enter the robots. <a href="http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/18/6296110-robots-en-route-to-japan">MSNBC reported</a> Monday that Japan Ground Self Defense Forces requested robots from iRobot (Bedford, Massachusetts)—two each of the 510 PackBot and 710 Warrior models—to help survey the environment in and around the plant. These “battle tested” robots were developed to assist combat troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to assess suspected explosive devices and explore caves and other areas where enemy troops might be located. According to an <a href="http://www.wnyc.org/npr_articles/2011/mar/23/first-eyes-inside-nuclear-plant-may-be-a-robots/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wnyc_home+%28WNYC+New+York+Public+Radio%29">NPR story</a> “Once the robots get inside [the nuclear plant], they might use their cameras to inspect the condition of the containment vessels around the reactors or take samples to check the radiation levels.”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://cheesefactoriesonthemoon.blogspot.com/2011/03/tsunamis-and-earmarks.html">Last week</a> we highlighted the role earmarks played in the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program that helps to provide early warnings and disaster preparedness for the states of the Pacific West.<br />
<br />
This week we point to another earmark-related irony of the Japanese disaster: The defense related iRobots that will be used in Japan were developed with the support of earmarks requested by members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation. According to public sources the company received $2,000,000 in 2008 alone to help develop the Warrior model that will now be used in Japan to help address the nuclear crisis.<br />
<br />
Often maligned by reporters as “parochial” and characterized as “pet projects,” earmarks often result in technologies that help Americans and people around the world respond to difficult challenges. Another one of those programs the Pentagon “didn’t want” –like the Predator Drone—has become an important tool for addressing defense and non-defense-related challenges. Earmarks can provide an important countervailing force to the not-so-always-perfect judgment of executive branch experts who often dismiss nascent technologies.Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-44304689022815853102011-03-15T08:35:00.000-07:002011-03-16T11:24:10.277-07:00Tsunamis and Earmarks<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Bv1CBtEWAAg/TX68c4jzreI/AAAAAAAAAFs/VVEc39ENtbY/s1600/Tsunami+Center.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Bv1CBtEWAAg/TX68c4jzreI/AAAAAAAAAFs/VVEc39ENtbY/s200/Tsunami+Center.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>The Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>The massive earthquake in Japan and the resulting tsunami activity in the Pacific reminds those who live in coastal communities of the sudden, awesome, and deadly power of nature. Tsunamis in 1946, 1960, and 1964 killed hundreds of Americans in coastal states; a large earthquake in 1992 off of California’s coast caused concern that tsunamis might make the West Coast vulnerable to even larger, more destructive, and more deadly tsunami events.<br />
<br />
In 1994 Congress directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to lead an inter-agency effort to promote tsunami awareness and preparedness effort. The effort joined the U.S. Geological Survey and the Federal Emergency Management Administration with the state emergency management agencies in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. In 1997, as a result of the initial leadership of Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR) (the by-then-retired Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee) on the issue, an initial earmark of $2.3 million established the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP).<br />
<br />
Predictably, anti-earmark crusader Senator John McCain (R-AZ) took to the Senate floor in July 1997 to “object strenuously” to the inclusion of, denounce, among other projects included in an appropriations bill, including the earmark for the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. McCain specifically objected to “$2.3 million to reduce tsunami risks to residents and visitors in Oregon, Washington, California, Hawaii, and Alaska.”[1]<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-G-apo15y9n8/TX69INuL_GI/AAAAAAAAAF0/EdBjizjArq4/s1600/Indian+Ocean+Tsunami.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-G-apo15y9n8/TX69INuL_GI/AAAAAAAAAF0/EdBjizjArq4/s200/Indian+Ocean+Tsunami.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>A coastal community overwhelmed, 2004</b></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>In 2004 more than 200,000 people were killed by the Indian Ocean Tsunami. The specter of a similar disaster occurring in the U.S. pushed the Bush Administration to support the Tsunami Warning and Education Act of 2006. In effect the Act endorsed and built upon the foundation laid by the NTHMP through a series of earmarks over the course of a decade. In the absence of the extensive interagency and state-federal partnerships forged by the earmark-supported NTHMP the U.S. would have been caught flatfooted by the recent tsunami. Instead coastal communities on the West Coast awoke to tsunami warnings and at-risk communities were evacuated preventing serious casualties.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-nf-_QuslHoU/TX69xZGH46I/AAAAAAAAAF4/BNKpHvfHqyY/s1600/Tsunami+damage+in+Hawaii.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-nf-_QuslHoU/TX69xZGH46I/AAAAAAAAAF4/BNKpHvfHqyY/s200/Tsunami+damage+in+Hawaii.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Tsunami damage in Hawaii, 2011</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>As with the Predator Drone, the Human Genome Project, mine resistant vehicles, and many other projects first championed by Congress, executive branch actors in Washington, DC resisted Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Project. For years the project was supported through earmarks promoted by Senators Inouye (D-HI) and Stevens (R-AK) who were seeking to be responsive to the real dangers facing their constituents. In the end the seemingly narrow interests of members of Congress (often derided for their perceived profligacy by the media and “watchdog” groups) produced a program of national importance. <br />
<br />
The executive branch is not the sole repository of all good ideas. Members of Congress are uniquely suited to identify issues of import to the communities they represent. It is unlikely that a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk in Washington, DC will spend much time thinking about tsunami dangers to coastal communities a continent away. The American system of representation positions of members of Congress to press the federal government to respond to local and regional issues and concerns. The recent moratorium on earmarks undermines the ability of members to be responsive to these concerns and, perhaps, the ability of our system to generate innovative approaches to pressing national problems. <br />
<br />
[1] Congressional Record, July 24, 1997, S8076.Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-76063238435943994612011-01-26T10:02:00.000-08:002011-01-26T10:02:54.920-08:00Congressman Changing the Culture of Washington (A Satire)Congressman Lamar Kennedy released an open letter to his district. We reprint it here in its entirety.<br />
<br />
Voters of the 13th District—<br />
<br />
Two years ago, in the historic election of 2010, you elected me on my promise to help change the way that Washington works and restore fiscal discipline in our country. I heard you. You were tired of the backroom deals and the frivolous congressional earmarks that have led us to the brink of fiscal ruin. I am pleased to report to you on my efforts over the last two years and what they mean for the district.<br />
<br />
<strong>Lushland County Flooding</strong><br />
One of the primary challenges in my first term was last year’s flooding in Lushland County. Inadequate levees and outdated pumping stations left some of the most productive agricultural land in the nation under two feet of water following unprecedented torrential rains. Local farmers and the businesses that support the agricultural sector were devastated. <br />
<br />
Leaders from the Lushland farming community immediately approached me to lobby the White House and FEMA leaders for a disaster declaration. I demurred. Such decisions are in the purview of the experts in the executive branch. I was pleased that a middle-level FEMA official flew out from Washington, DC to hover over the area in a helicopter and make a statement to the local media. We were all disappointed when the disaster declaration was denied, but it is not my role as a member of Congress to attempt to influence bureaucratic decisions such as this.<br />
<br />
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has conducted an initial cost-benefit study to determine whether a flood mitigation project is warranted in Lushland County. Using established protocols USACE has determined that a flood mitigation project is not economically feasible and I have accepted this decision. My predecessor likely would have sought an earmark to begin work on this project and force the USACE to return this fertile area to a productive state. I refuse to engage in the practice of earmarking that supports the pet projects of members of Congress. In fact, you elected me to eliminate earmarks, and I support the Republicans’ moritorium on the practice. My sympathies are with the agricultural community in Lushland County. But restoring fiscal sanity in this country requires shared sacrifice and the people in Lushland are—I have no doubt—proud to bear their share of the burden of returning fiscal sanity to Washington.<br />
<br />
<strong>Patton-Schwartzkopf Base Closure</strong><br />
Many in our district have been concerned about the future of Patton-Schwartzkopf Military Base. Patton-Schwartzkopf was under consideration for closure in an attempt to streamline military operations and save the taxpayers’ money. The local economy—especially the economy in the neighboring city of Gila—and many of the local businesses in the area, who employ thousands, depend on the base. <br />
<br />
I am pleased to report that I did not lift a finger to lobby in support of the base. Doing so might have led me into the kind of backroom dealing that you elected me to eliminate. While I am disappointed about the decision to close the base I know that we here in the district are willing to lose our friends, our businesses, and our jobs to benefit the overall national goal of reducing the federal deficit. <br />
<br />
The planned investment by Hiliott Hotels in a hotel/convention center complex in Gila has been cancelled. Corporate leaders indicated that their business plan relied heavily on the presence of Patton-Schwartzkopf and that without the base the hotel/convention center would not be economically viable. I applaud their business acumen and support their shrewd business decision-making.<br />
<br />
<strong>Major State University Cancer Research Center</strong><br />
We are all proud to have Major State University in the district. Go Manx Cats! Among its distinguished programs is the Sartelli-Farfalla Cancer Research Center. Path breaking research at the Center is changing how physicians diagnose and treat this dreaded disease, and several local biotechnology firms have capitalized on discoveries made at Sartelli-Farfalla, adding high paying jobs to our economy.<br />
<br />
Responding to a major new initiative at the National Institutes of Health, Major State entered into a competition for major funding to improve the Center’s research facilities. The proposed improvements would expand the Sartelli-Farfalla’s research capacity and allow them to attract nationally recognized faculty.<br />
The President of Major State and major supporters of the Center approached me to send a letter of support to NIH. They urged me to indicate my “solid support” for the planned improvements and “strongly encourage NIH to give very serious consideration” to their proposal. In the old Washington the practice of writing such letters was known as “lettermarking,” a kissing cousin of earmarks. I steadfastly refused to write the letter of support.<br />
<br />
At every turn I have refused to promote the interests of our district. Changing the culture of Washington begins with the principled decisions of one man and the sacrifices of one community. I am that man and we are that community. Together we are changing the corrupt culture of Washington, DC. This is the New Washington that we are building together. I look forward to continuing to serve you in the years to come.Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-77999814975111875392011-01-13T13:09:00.000-08:002011-01-13T13:09:08.329-08:00The Cheese Factory on the Dylan Ratigan ShowOn Wednesday Jimmy Williams and Dylan Ratigan invited us to share our perspective on earmarks. Two quick observations on the experience: Mr. Ratigan talks a lot, and his guests do not. Enjoy!<br />
<br />
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0" height="245" id="msnbc8e6205" width="420"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=41045136^1410^481760&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc8e6205" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=41045136^1410^481760&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><br />
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent; color: #999999; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; margin-top: 5px; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none ! important;">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none ! important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none ! important;">news about the economy</a></div>Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-4494969070028826842010-12-30T13:29:00.000-08:002010-12-30T13:29:27.906-08:00Watchdogs Cooking Up a New 'Problem'In a “shocking” discovery Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) reveals that members of Congress have found “alternatives” to finding funding for their “pet projects” and <i>The New York Times</i> dutifully <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/us/politics/28earmarks.html?src=me">reported </a>on it.<br />
<br />
Using a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request CAGW discovered a letter from anti-earmark Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) who lobbied the Department of Education to release money earmarked by the bureaucracy for a school district in his then-House District.<br />
<br />
This is reminiscent of a study a few months ago by the Center for Public Integrity that we commented on <a href="http://tiny.cc/vga78">here</a> and <a href="http://tiny.cc/eojo5">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Then, as now, we pointed out that, especially given their new level of transparency, earmarks were a superior option for funding local projects, from a democratic point of view. <br />
<blockquote>• Transparency increases the likelihood that the project request is available for public scrutiny; interest groups and individuals do not need to wade into the dark recesses of the bureaucracy, FOIA requests in hand, to identify member requests. </blockquote><blockquote>• Earmark requests promoted by members of Congress allow for a level democratic accountability that is absent in the bureaucracy. We the people can punish members for “stupid” earmarks or reward them for being responsive to local needs.</blockquote>As long as earmarks (in their current form) are banned we can expect more reports like this, despite the fact that members of Congress have been hounding the bureaucracy about funding issues on behalf of their constituents since the bureaucracy began spending money.<br />
<br />
Furthermore interest groups that previously relied on ginning up animosity toward earmarks to raise money from an outraged public needs to promote these stories to maintain their fundraising efforts. <i>It takes a lot of money to clean up government</i>. How can you raise money when you’ve “solved” the problem (earmarks) that previously buttered your bread?[1] <br />
<br />
And the news media will continue to report on these “shocking” revelations—and helping interest groups raise big money—because the stories are consistent with a narrative understanding of members of Congress as inherently hypocritical and obsessed with reelection.<br />
<br />
All this and the only casualty is a part of our American democracy.<br />
<br />
<b><b>Endnote</b></b><br />
<br />
[1] The degree to which CAGW can go to raise money is well documented. For instance see Bill Adair “For price, watchdog will be an advocate” <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/02/news_pf/Worldandnation/For_price__watchdog_w.shtml">http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/02/news_pf/Worldandnation/For_price__watchdog_w.shtml</a> Accessed December 30, 2010.Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-66349014499224167542010-12-20T22:48:00.000-08:002010-12-20T22:48:08.389-08:00Cheese Factories in the WaPoWe were a "little" pleased to get a <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/how_earmarks_mapped_the_human.html">mention</a> by Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein who noticed the<a href="http://tiny.cc/qdx6x"> interview</a> with Jamelle Bouie of the American Prospect.Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-63091801689771018262010-12-17T07:36:00.000-08:002010-12-17T07:36:44.540-08:00Are Earmarks Like Pornography? A Few Results from an Internet-Based Survey<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>As the FY 2011 appropriations cycle becomes white hot, controversy over earmarks once again surfaces, presenting one more sticking point for passing an omnibus appropriations bill. Earmark foes are demanding that earmarks be stripped from the omnibus or the president should veto the bill and demand that the earmarks be expunged. <br />
<br />
Reporters have again dutifully taken the bait and are writing their obligatory stories ridiculing select earmarks that are included in the bill (while failing to do any research into the earmarks to determine whether they might be justified).<br />
<br />
Where would the American public be without the media pointing out these “pet projects” for us?<br />
<br />
According to Ronald Utt of the Heritage Foundation, we do not need the media’s help. He argues that:<br />
<blockquote>In at least one way, earmarks are like pornography: There's no universally accepted definition. Potter Stewart, a justice on the Supreme Court, famously said of pornography in 1964, ‘I know it when I see it.’ Well, most Americans know earmarks when they see them.[1] </blockquote>Critics of earmarks extol the virtues of government expenditures determined through competitive, neutral, bureaucratic processes. “Peer review,” for instance, is held up as the gold standard for determining project funding. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, which rely on panels of experts to objectively judge research proposals, are held up as prime examples of how projects should be funded.<br />
<br />
If “most Americans know earmarks when they see them” they certainly will know an expenditure determined through a competitive, neutral, bureaucratic processes when they see it too.<br />
<br />
We were curious: Provided with examples of earmarks and bureaucratically determined grant projects will individuals be able to consistently distinguish between the two? <br />
<br />
Given the constant drumbeat of negativity provided by “watchdog groups” and the media, will individuals consistently conclude that spending driven by bureaucratic decisions are consistently “better” (i.e., less “wasteful”) than earmarked expenditures?<br />
<br />
To partially satisfy our curiosity we conducted a non-random internet-based survey. While the results are not representative of American public opinion, they are suggestive.[2]<br />
<br />
Respondents were given a short description of a real project and asked to identify it as either an earmark or a bureaucratically determined project (see Figure 1). The wording of our items is specifically intended to present information about the earmark outside of any particular “frame” of reference that indicate what kind of project it is, or that will bias individual evaluations of the earmark, that is, whether it is “good or bad.” <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aWH1zi0iUqg/TQq9FGlJX8I/AAAAAAAAAFQ/bQvUuPGqbc0/s1600/Survey+Screenshot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="188" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aWH1zi0iUqg/TQq9FGlJX8I/AAAAAAAAAFQ/bQvUuPGqbc0/s400/Survey+Screenshot.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
<b>Figure 1: This illustrates the format that was used to present the projects to respondents. Answers were presented in random order</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table><b>Do respondents know an earmark when they see it?</b><br />
<br />
According to our results (see Table 1) respondents correctly identified the earmark projects about 60% of the time on average, and the bureaucratic projects slightly over half of the time (approximately 53% on average). About 40% of respondents incorrectly identified bureaucratically determined expenditures as earmarks. <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aWH1zi0iUqg/TQq9sJ-UUdI/AAAAAAAAAFU/W81Ur-dU-wc/s1600/Survey+Results+Table+1a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="285" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aWH1zi0iUqg/TQq9sJ-UUdI/AAAAAAAAAFU/W81Ur-dU-wc/s400/Survey+Results+Table+1a.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Table 1: This table indicates that most respondents correctly distinguished between earmark expenditures and expenditures determined by bureaucratic processes.</b></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Among the projects we presented to respondents the Galaxy Formation Study was incorrectly identified as an earmark by almost two out of three respondents and the Grizzly DNA research study was identified as bureaucratically determined by almost half of the respondents.<br />
<br />
Averages can be deceiving. Often groups are able to produce accurate predictions while individual respondents remain highly inaccurate. How accurate were individual respondents when it came to correctly identifying all eight projects? <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aWH1zi0iUqg/TQq-H4FaQ4I/AAAAAAAAAFY/9e0UpOZ7Wlw/s1600/Earmark+Knowledge+Histogram1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aWH1zi0iUqg/TQq-H4FaQ4I/AAAAAAAAAFY/9e0UpOZ7Wlw/s400/Earmark+Knowledge+Histogram1.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Figure 2: Individual respondents were not very successful at consistently distinguishing earmark projects from bureaucratically determined projects.</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table><blockquote><ul><li>Only one respondent correctly identified all of the projects; and eight more correctly identified seven out of eight projects;</li>
<li>Twenty percent of respondents were correct three times out of four;</li>
<li>More than half failed to correctly identify more than half of the projects;</li>
<li>Almost one-third correctly identified three or fewer of the eight projects.</li>
</ul></blockquote><br />
In short, the ability of individual respondents to distinguish between earmarks and projects determined through neutral, bureaucratic processes is far from perfect; in fact, it is only slightly better than the flip of a coin for the majority of our respondents.<br />
<br />
<b>Do respondents think earmarks are more wasteful?</b><br />
<br />
One of the primary criticisms of earmarks is that they constitute wasteful spending. With regard to each of the projects that we presented to respondents we asked them whether the expenditure was a “waste of taxpayer dollars.” Respondents were given five responses (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree). Responses for each of the projects are displayed in Table 2.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aWH1zi0iUqg/TQq-1PjkdRI/AAAAAAAAAFc/awD1b5zOlrA/s1600/Survey+Results+Table+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="175" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aWH1zi0iUqg/TQq-1PjkdRI/AAAAAAAAAFc/awD1b5zOlrA/s320/Survey+Results+Table+1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Overall none of these projects mustered a majority of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that the project was wasteful. The two projects that came closest to a majority were bureaucratic projects not earmarks. The two projects that were judged “least wasteful” were earmark-related projects. Based on the judgment of our respondents it is not the case that earmarks are consistently more wasteful than bureaucratic project grants.[3]<br />
<br />
Furthermore our results (not shown) indicate that those respondents who correctly identified a project as an earmark were more likely to agree that it was “wasteful.” In sum, in the minds of our respondents earmarks are not equated with profligacy. <br />
<br />
When asked to choose between funding the Woodstock Museum (an earmark) and the Grateful Dead Archive (a competitive grant-funded project) a stunning 85% of respondents chose the Woodstock Museum. This is even more stunning since the $2 million earmark for the Museum—sought by then-Senator Hillary Clinton—was so effectively ridiculed by earmark (and Clinton) critics as spending taxpayers’ money on a “hippie museum” that Senator Clinton requested that the earmark be stripped from the appropriations bill of which it was a part.<br />
<br />
<b>What do we make of these results?</b><br />
<br />
We need to repeat, once again, that the results presented here are based on a non-scientific sample of opinions; they should not be construed as representative of broad public opinion. They do suggest, however, that public opinion surrounding earmarks deserves some attention. <br />
<br />
Perceptions of public opinion on the issue are largely built on media coverage of activated opinion, the views of anti-earmark members of Congress, and Washington-based anti-earmark groups. Yet in a rare data-based finding the Pew Research Center reported that 53% of Americans were more likely to vote for a member of Congress with a record of bringing government projects to the district; only 12% were less likely to vote for such a member and 33% said it made no difference.[4]<br />
<br />
It seems that without the “help” of watchdog groups or the media who identify earmarks for the public, individuals may be quite bad at distinguishing between earmark and competitively awarded projects. Furthermore, without the “help” of watchdog groups or the media our respondents did not intuitively equate earmarks with wasteful spending. In the absence of media framing that describes the most egregious sounding earmarks implying waste, individuals do not find earmark expenditures to be any more wasteful than competitively awarded grants and projects.<br />
<br />
Politicians seem to posses some special insight into what the American public seems to “think” about earmarks. Announcing his change of heart on earmarks and his support for a Senate Republican moratorium on earmarks Senator Mitch McConnell said that by continuing to pursue earmarks the “..Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American people.” President Obama said shortly after the midterm elections that he was “a strong believer that the earmarking process in Congress isn’t what the American people really want to see when it comes to making tough decisions about how taxpayer dollars are spent.” <br />
<br />
Based on the Pew finding alone anyone who purports knowing what Americans “think” about earmarks is just dead wrong. If public opinion is half as nuanced as our small survey suggests anti-earmark politicians may be overplaying their hands considerably.<br />
<br />
<b>Endnotes</b><br />
<br />
[1] Ronald Utt “Eliminating earmarks” <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2006/04/Eliminating-earmarks">http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2006/04/Eliminating-earmarks</a>. Accessed December 16, 2010.<br />
<br />
[2] These data are the result of a non-random sample of individuals responding to an internet survey. The sample was generated via social networking sites including Facebook and Twitter, and through other traditional word of mouth techniques. The results of this non-scientific survey are not, and should not be, represented as indicative of American public opinion; they are, however, suggestive of patterns that might be emerge from a larger, more sophisticated scientific survey.<br />
<br />
[3] On our scale, which ranged from 1 to 5 (strongly disagree to strongly agree), the earmark projects had an average score of 1.72 compared to 2.75 for the bureaucratic projects, indicating that the earmarks had more support on average than the other projects. This difference is significant at the p < .000 level (t=12.45).<br />
<br />
[4] In our study 30% of our respondents report being a little or much more likely to vote for a member of Congress who pursues earmarks compared to 18% who are a little or much less likely to vote for a member who pursues earmarks. In our sample 53% of respondents report that the pursuit of earmarks would not influence their vote choice.Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-74554035251247111602010-12-17T07:34:00.000-08:002011-01-13T13:18:25.754-08:00Cheese Factories on The American ProspectSean did an interview with <span class="article_byline"><span class="black">Jamelle Bouie of <i>The American Prospect</i> about <i>Cheese Factories on the Moon</i>. It appears today on their <a href="http://tiny.cc/qdx6x">website</a>.</span></span>Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-725067117210511717.post-35355419971729441552010-12-10T14:15:00.000-08:002010-12-10T14:15:22.383-08:00Cheese Factories on Wordle<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/2867829/Cheese_Factories_on_the_Moon_--_the_book" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Wordle: Cheese Factories on the Moon -- the book" border="0" src="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/2867829/Cheese_Factories_on_the_Moon_--_the_book" style="border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); padding: 4px;" /></a>Just having a little fun between meetings today. We took the text of our entire manuscript and entered it into Wordle (http://www.wordle.net) and generated the word cloud to the left. If you did not know that our book was about Congress and earmarks the word cloud tells the story. Try it yourself; it is a lot of fun.</div>Scott Frisch and Sean Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05707041103554118556noreply@blogger.com0