Search News


Browse Archives

News

Plenty of Pork

March 3, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Critics of Congressional earmarks harshly attacked President Obama and members of his administration Monday, accusing the White House of ignoring the president's campaign promise to end the use of lawmaker-directed projects as a way of allocating precious federal funds. But it's unlikely that many of those complaints will be coming from colleges, which stand to benefit -- to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars -- from the pork barrel-laden fiscal 2009 spending bill that is prompting the outcry.

The arguments for and against earmarked spending -- federal monies that individual members of Congress specifically direct to entities of their choosing, usually constituents from their districts or states that have lobbied for the funds -- are by now well worn. They’re regularly derided by critics as fostering the waste of tax dollars and encouraging a sometimes secretive circumvention of the traditional peer review processes, which often results in failure to produce the best science. Supporters argue that the earmarks level the playing field for less-prestigious institutions that are too often shut out of the sometimes clubby executive branch grant making processes.

President Bush regularly railed against earmarks, especially late in his time in office, and they gained a high profile in the 2008 presidential campaign, with the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain, putting them virtually at the center of his domestic policy, to the point that he was sometimes ridiculed for talking about little else. President Obama, not to be left out, himself vowed to crack down on earmarks.

But the omnibus spending bill for the 2009 fiscal year that Congressional Democrats released last month, having deferred action from last year because they wanted to avoid a fight with the lame duck Bush administration over spending priorities and earmarks, is filled with what critics estimate to be 9,000 earmarks designated by members of Congress.

Administration officials said that the Obama would sign the legislation despite the earmarks, with the White House budget director, Peter Orszag, explaining on the Sunday morning political talk shows that the administation considered the 2009 budget to be "last year's business" and that the president, while remaining opposed to earmarks, wanted to "just move on."

That brought angry denunciations from McCain and others on the Senate floor Monday as Congress's senior chamber debated the omnibus spending measure. "What, so throw open the barn door and let this omnibus be filled with 9,000 earmarks and you will just look the other way, despite your pledges in opposition to earmarks? What happened to his pledge last September, when President Obama said during the debate in Oxford, Miss., 'We need earmark reform, and when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely' ?" (McCain proposed scrapping the omnibus bill and instead extending, for the rest of the 2009 fiscal year, the continuing resolution that is set to expire Friday.)

The White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, was pressed further at a briefing for reporters Monday, where one noted that the president's closest associates were responsible for some of the earmarks.

"It has been learned," one reporter said, "that Vice President Biden has, I think it’s $750,000 for the University of Delaware satellite station, and Rahm Emanuel $900,000 for the Chicago Planetarium. Since the president talked so much about earmarks in the campaign and as president about keeping them out of the stimulus -- I know this is left-over business from last year, but it’s something that he is either going to sign or veto. Why not have, you know, the earmarks that come from his administration, essentially, at least taken out to send a signal, number one. And No. 2, is there any chance he’ll veto this bill and send it back and say, 'Get these earmarks out, there’s over 9,000 of them' ?"

"

"What, so throw open the barn door and let this omnibus be filled with 9,000 earmarks and you will just look the other way, despite your pledges in opposition to earmarks?
-- John McCain

"

 

Gibbs rebuffed that idea, but promised a crackdown going forward. "I think what’s most important and what the president would tell you is important here is that though he doesn’t control everything that happened before he became president of the United States, that dozens and dozens and dozens of appropriations bills will go through Congress and come to his desk over the course of the next four years."

Shhhh, Stop Complaining!

Calculating exactly how much earmarked money the omnibus legislation contains and who would receive it will take some doing, both because the spending bill and the accompanying reports that explain it are thousands of pages long, and because, despite new Congressional rules on transparency, the descriptions of the projects do not in every case seem to identify the recipient.

For instance, a list of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in the portion of the spending bill for the Energy Department would deliver $380,600 for the "Carbon Neutral Green Campus," in Nevada. No college is noted, but an Office of Management and Budget database of earmarks attributes it to Nevada State College. Similarly, a $1,522,400 award for a "geothermal power generation plant" in Oregon fails to note that the money would go to the Oregon Institute of Technology. And all of the many, many grants for research projects within the U.S. Department of Agriculture identify the projects by name -- "Cranberry/Blueberry Disease and Breeding, N.J." -- but not by recipient.

But judging just from the money that the bill makes clear would go to colleges and universities, they would benefit mightily from the omnibus legislation.

Research Spending

The section of the spending bill for Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies includes at least $179 million in earmarks for colleges and universities, for instance. Institutions in Mississippi and Hawaii, which are represented by the senior Republican (Thad Cochran) and Democratic chairman (Daniel Inouye), respectively, of the Senate Appropriations Committee, would fare particularly well.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's budget would provide $2 million for the University of Hawaii's Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative, $700,000 for its Institute of Marine Biology, and $1.25 million for its Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research. The University of Mississippi would get $7.35 million for three different research projects.

The University of Mississippi's Medical Center would also get $6.5 million in an earmark from the National Institute of Standards and Technology's research construction fund, as would Mississippi State University. The big winner from NIST earmarks would be the University of Alabama: $30 million for an "interdisciplinary science and engineering teaching and research corridor."

The Health Resources and Services Administration, under the portion of the omnibus legislation for education, labor, and health and human services, contains hundreds of millions of dollars for health-care related facilities, including more than $100 million divided among scores of colleges and universities.

Among the would-be recipients: Iowa State University ($666,000) and Iowa Western Community College ($476,000) for facilities and equipment, Marshall University ($3.996 million for Translational Genomic Research Institute), the Nevada System of Higher Education ($951,000 for nursing and medical clinical skills labs), Montgomery College ($714,000 for biotechnology equipment), the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa ($9.515 million for construction and equipment), the University of Louisville ($8.563 million), and West Virginia University ($3.996 million for a multiple sclerosis center).

Also through the HRSA budget, Clark Atlanta University, which is facing serious financial turmoil, would receive $428,000 for facilities and equipment.

More than 300 colleges would snag a piece of about $91 million in earmarked projects to be provided in the budget of the Education Department's Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, and dozens more, mostly in partnerships with school districts and nonprofit groups, would get a piece of the $88 million allocated through the Fund for the Improvement of Education.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Plenty of Pork

  • Could be worse
  • Posted by AR on March 3, 2009 at 8:00am EST
  • So what! These earmarks are going to universities to develop new programs of education and research. I'm sure there are some that are going to less worthy causes, those are the ones they should complain about. Maybe a list would be nice... then all the speculating and political posturing can stop.

  • Posted by Jim on March 3, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • A million here a million there, a billion here a billion there, pretty soon you have 'real money' or how about one person's pork is another person's gravy?

    So what it is 'educational' spending. Who cares if it 'tax dollars' shouldn't the entire country pay for what each higher education institution does or does not do?

    To bad, that some of the mentioned 'pork' didn't go to remedial math, english and reading that many of our high school graduates need in order to succeed at college. With a 40% failure rate (or greater) our entire industry needs to 'retool' if General Motors had that large of failure rate of their vehicles, they wouldn't have to worry about a 'bail out.'

    But it is just education after all. So on we go. I think it does not matter who is in 'command' it is the same old, same old. Business as usual.

    Sure hope my institution gets some of the 'pork.' I like fried bacon.

  • Where is The Pork?
  • Posted by Bill on March 3, 2009 at 9:00am EST
  • Why not just a list of the earmarks. Provide the earmark name, then a few words about what it is for. That way, everyone has the same information, so to speak.

  • Every year is the same and we love it.
  • Posted by Lloyd on March 3, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • Every year politicians lie and people complain. Then we start a new year.

  • remedial pork
  • Posted by Dale , English Department at Roanoke-Benson High School on March 3, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • Apparently, high schools aren't the only educational institutions in need of "remedial english" programs. Isn't that right, Jim?

  • Posted by Adjunct George on March 3, 2009 at 9:45am EST
  • Onk! Onk! I am angry at my fellow Republicans for taking part in this pork fest. If you want money, go through the government grant process. Now that the Democrats control the whole federal system there is no excuse for the democrats in congress to use earmarks.

  • what is "pork"?
  • Posted by Gary Davis on March 3, 2009 at 11:00am EST
  • Adjunct George seems to believe that all earmarks are bad. I disagree. What if the earmark is designed to force local officials to spend money as it ought to be spent? When one invests an hour or so studying the earmark process, it soon becomes clear that some earmarks make sense and some -- like the "bridge to nowhere" -- do not. Instead of railing against earmarks, we'd be better off discerning which earmarks make sense and which do not. Of course, that would require us to engage in quiet study and that's not as much fun as shouting or writing provocative headlines.

  • Pork
  • Posted by Buckeye on March 3, 2009 at 11:00am EST
  • It seems the change we voted for has lost its way and can't find our government. One thing they never cease to deliver is disappointment. Good thing we have developed a taste for it.

  • cargo cult
  • Posted by Marcus , admin on March 3, 2009 at 11:00am EST
  • Glad we voted for hope and change!

    Let's see, we're tripling the deficit to $1.5 trillion, increasing taxes, providing disincentives for charitable giving. Just the thing to give confidence to investors. Let's remember that parents, who need jobs, are the ones who have to pay tuition. Without a strong economy, and generous donors, we have no hope of generating sufficient income for an institution's budget. But I guess we can always ask the government to print more money. There's a strategic plan for us!

  • the problem with "pork"
  • Posted by Michael on March 3, 2009 at 2:15pm EST
  • Earmarks are problematic, but not for the reasons often cited.

    The "bridge to nowhere" actually did go somewhere. It connected the 5th largest city in Alaska the only major airport in the area (which is on an island). They built the airport there because a) they are surrounded by federally protected or unusable land, and b) officials promised that them a bridge. This happened in 1973. This is not a "bridge to nowhere," but the cost of the bridge outweighed the benefits. Of course, it is easy for me to say this because I do not live there.

    There is no shortage of ways for the government to spend money that "make sense." The problem with earmarks is the process. Members of Congress constantly rail against nameless, faceless bureaucrats who are not as knowledgeable as they (the members) are of their districts or states. Yet as the system stands, and as the article makes clear, it is a "the squeaky wheel gets the oil" (or "the chair's squeaky wheel gets the oil") process.

    Proposal: Give each member of Congress a set amount each year for earmarks. They then have to decide what projects are truly priorities for their districts or states. If a group of them wants to get together to pool their resources, fine. Outside of this set amount, all federal funding must go through some sort of competitive review process.

  • Posted by Gary is right. on March 4, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • I would suggest we define "earmarks" as those add-ons, to benefit a particular legislator, that don't fit with the larger purpose of the bill. The purpose of this bill is to fund projects that will inject money into the economy quickly. How does funding a particular construction project on a campus not fit that bill? The crime would be if the plans aren't yet drawn up, and the first payments to construction workers are a year away. THAT is worth pointing out.

  • Gary and Gary Is Right
  • Posted by DFS on March 4, 2009 at 4:15pm EST
  • If what you assert is true -- that not all earmarks are just pork -- then I agree. Please provide a concrete example of such, so I can then attack the media for implying otherwise.

    I do have an open mind about this.

  • In Defense of Earmarks
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on March 7, 2009 at 3:45pm EST
  • Sorry to say, I just came upon this essay and the responses this afternoon. My next-door neighbor and I have an on-going battle about practically everything you could imagine, but this morning he sent me the following note ...

    “I had never thought about it, Manley, but the costs of earmarks are not based on any actual estimates but just what the seeker thinks he can get. Obviously this leads to overspending on projects and even skimming. They are worse than I ever imagined. Pork should be refunded to the States based on taxes collected. Your thoughts?”

    Well, here are my thoughts ...

    1. I think earmarks are an excellent way for Senators and Representatives to show their constituents they are "working" for them.

    2. I think Senators and Representatives (and the businessmen who own them) know about as much as anyone what state and district needs are.

    3. I think earmarks are economically fairly efficient ... almost always getting desired -- and, more often than not, needed – resources to constituents in a timely manner. Furthermore, it pains me to imagine the entire Congress spending an enormous amount of time and energy considering and debating issues that affect only our congressional district. And it also pains me to imagine representatives from Arkansas, for example, providing input about how we might spend some earmarked funds on an educational program here in Virginia.

    4. I think voters send Senators and Representatives to Washington, not because they want representation on a national level, but because they want to see their tax dollars come back home in a manner that “works” for them.”

    5. I do wish earmarks were a bit more transparent, but I actually think transparency is a red herring drug across the political landscape by Senators and Representatives who don't have more important issues to champion ... and, even then, they generally do it for show (like Sarah Palin).

    6. Hardly any Senators or Representatives dislike earmarks. They all participate in the process ... and the only ones who complain about them – like John McCain – do so, not on philosophical grounds, but because they see it as an opportunity to gain a political advantage over their opponents. If you pay attention to those who make a big stink about earmarks, you will see it is individuals who have almost nothing meaningful to say about important governmental matters. They’re strumming their one-string banjos.

    7. In a relative sense, earmarks are free. For all the good they do – and that’s a lot – their total cost is a tiny fraction of the federal budget.

    As I’ve told you before, Bob, the earmark I’m pulling for here in Winchester is the FBI Data Center that has been “promised” to us. So the next time you’re inclined to worry about earmarks, just write a letter to our representatives, telling them to get on the Earmark Bandwagon and start construction on our Center. Then sit back and watch our real estate values soar. Damn, I love earmarks!”

    Well, Doug Lederman, I wrote more ... but I’ll end this rant by asking “Who doesn’t like this guy?”

    http://www.potbellypigsusa.com/resources/porky_pig.jpg

  • Cliff Notes on Manley
  • Posted by DFS on March 11, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Here it is, with much less wind: Pork is pork, and we selfishly love the tast of pork. And, by the way, those only worth mentioning regarding pork must be republicans.