Tsunamis 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.

Enter the robots. MSNBC reported 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 NPR story “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.”

Last week 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.

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.

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.

Tsunamis and Earmarks

The Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii

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.

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).

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]

A coastal community overwhelmed, 2004

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.

Tsunami damage in Hawaii, 2011

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.

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.

[1] Congressional Record, July 24, 1997, S8076.

Congressman Changing the Culture of Washington (A Satire)

Congressman Lamar Kennedy released an open letter to his district. We reprint it here in its entirety.

Voters of the 13th District—

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.

Lushland County Flooding
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.

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.

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.

Patton-Schwartzkopf Base Closure
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.

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.

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.

Major State University Cancer Research Center
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.

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.
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.

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.

The Cheese Factory on the Dylan Ratigan Show

On 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!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Watchdogs 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 The New York Times dutifully reported on it.

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.

This is reminiscent of a study a few months ago by the Center for Public Integrity that we commented on here and here.

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.

• 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.

• 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.

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.

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. It takes a lot of money to clean up government. How can you raise money when you’ve “solved” the problem (earmarks) that previously buttered your bread?[1]

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.

All this and the only casualty is a part of our American democracy.

Endnote

[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” http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/02/news_pf/Worldandnation/For_price__watchdog_w.shtml Accessed December 30, 2010.

Cheese Factories in the WaPo

We were a "little" pleased to get a mention by Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein who noticed the interview with Jamelle Bouie of the American Prospect.

Are Earmarks Like Pornography? A Few Results from an Internet-Based Survey

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.

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).

Where would the American public be without the media pointing out these “pet projects” for us?

According to Ronald Utt of the Heritage Foundation, we do not need the media’s help. He argues that:

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]

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.

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.

We were curious: Provided with examples of earmarks and bureaucratically determined grant projects will individuals be able to consistently distinguish between the two?

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?

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]

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.”

Figure 1: This illustrates the format that was used to present the projects to respondents. Answers were presented in random order

Do respondents know an earmark when they see it?

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.

Table 1: This table indicates that most respondents correctly distinguished between earmark expenditures and expenditures determined by bureaucratic processes.

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.

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?

Figure 2: Individual respondents were not very successful at consistently distinguishing earmark projects from bureaucratically determined projects.

• Only one respondent correctly identified all of the projects; and eight more correctly identified seven out of eight projects;
• Twenty percent of respondents were correct three times out of four;
• More than half failed to correctly identify more than half of the projects;
• Almost one-third correctly identified three or fewer of the eight projects.

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.

Do respondents think earmarks are more wasteful?

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.

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]

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.

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.

What do we make of these results?

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.

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]

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.

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.”

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.

Endnotes

[1] Ronald Utt “Eliminating earmarks” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2006/04/Eliminating-earmarks. Accessed December 16, 2010.

[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.

[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).

[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.