Eliminating pork in Ohio prisons - a violation of 'separation of church and state'?

No, we're not talking about unnecessary spending to gain gain votes - this post is about pork - the other white meat, as their advertising calls it.

You see, in response to a lawsuit filed my a Muslim inmate, Ohio has decided to eliminate all pork products in their prisons. Interestingly, pork isn't even mentioned in the lawsuit which is insisting that all non-pork meats for Muslims come from animals slaughtered according to Islamic law. Ohio prisons already provide pre-packaged meals for Jewish inmates.

Death row inmate Abdul Awkal, the plaintiff in the suit, has said that non-pork and vegetarian options available in the prisons are not enough - that the meat that is served needs to be prepared in a manner proscribed by his religion (the throat of the animal needs to be slit and the blood drained).

Obviously, Ohio's pork producers are not happy. Pork was taken off the menus in 2009, but was added back last year. Pork rib patties are on the menu about once a week. Pork producers say that pork is a less expensive meat and thus saves the state money. The Ohio Pork Producers Council weighed in:

"We really think it's not in the best interest, frankly, of the whole prison system," said Dick Isler, executive director of the Ohio Pork Producers Council. "It seems like we're letting a small group make the rules when it really isn't in the best interest of the rest of prisoners."

This doesn't make sense to me. Why eliminate all pork from the menu if pre-packaged halal meals are available? If they can provide such meals for Jewish inmates, why not do the same for Muslim inmates?

The response of the state seems to be overkill and I don't know why this even ended up as a lawsuit in the first place. The state probably will lose the lawsuit considering the accommodations they've made for the eating requirements of those who follow the Jewish faith.

But are they risking a bigger problem by the elimination of pork altogether?

Is it not possible that pork-loving inmates could sue over the elimination of pork and claim that the state has violated the 'separation of church and state'? (the term is in quotes for a reason) If the display of the Ten Commandments is a violation of 'separation of church and state,' is not the insistence that all inmates not eat pork because of Muslim mandates not also a violation? Is the state not forcing non-Muslims to comply with the Muslim ban on pork? Are they 'inflicting' portions of the Muslim faith on non-Muslims?

After all, non-Muslims should not be infringed upon simply because of one inmate's religious beliefs. If even one non-Muslim inmate is offended... This just can't stand, right?

Of course I'm being sarcastic. But this is the same logic used so often to oppose anything that can even remotely be considered religious in public places - especially if the religious perspective is Christian. I just wonder how long it will be before we see consistency in the application of such logic.

If Jewish and halal pre-packaged meals are available, then offer them on the day that the pork rib patties are served. Problem solved - and Ohio saves the cost of a lawsuit.

Kaptur makes Drudge headline for pork in energy bill

Here's the Drudge Report with a link to a story on Rep. Marcy Kaptur's 'sweetener' for her vote in favor of the Waxman-Markey energy bill (bottom left column):


According to the story from the Washington Times (be sure to read the comments, too), Kaptur was undecided until this was added. Her spokesman said it was a factor in her decision.

But not everyone from Ohio liked the idea:

"Although the program would benefit his home state, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, also of Ohio, criticized the provision during a more-than-hourlong speech Friday evening. He said an Ohio-based power authority was unneeded because electricity already flows well through Ohio without a new federal power authority.

"We do it today," he said. "We are doing it already." "

My problem is with the logic of her request - the federal government is doing this sort of subsidizing elsewhere, so we should get money and the program, too.

I think that's part of what's wrong with government - everyone trying to get funding for their special interest because someone else got funding. Instead, legislators should be working to eliminate such federal spending on pet projects and return the money to the taxpayers, who wouldn't need such 'help' if the feds weren't taking so much of their own money to begin with. But that's just me...

However, in this case, we're going to be stuck paying a $3.5 billion bill for a pet project of a legislator in exchange for her vote on a law that will cost of dearly in terms of increased energy expenses on everything. What a bargain!

2009 Ohio Piglet Book

Last week, The Buckeye Institute and Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) released the 2009 Ohio Piglet Book: The Book Ohio's Government Doesn't Want You To Read.

From the press release:

Ohio budget officials project a shortfall of $7.3 billion for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, which comes after a tough budget period in FY 2009, when Governor Ted Strickland ordered most state agencies to cut 4.75 percent from their budgets in order to backfill a $540 million deficit. As legislators consider how to make revenues meet expenditures, the 2009 Ohio Piglet Book gives concrete examples of waste for policymakers looking to trim the fat from state budgets.

* $126.5 million in FY 2009 for the Third Frontier, which is the Ohio Department of Development's (ODOD) ten-year project to expand high-tech research in Ohio slated to cost $1.6 billion when complete. Third Frontier funnels tax money to a select group of corporations. It is never a good idea for the state to be involved in picking winners and losers in the economy.
* ODOD, which is slated to receive $1.19 billion in FY 2010, distributes tax credits, loans and corporate welfare grants. Previous grants have included giving out $475,000 to open a Chuck E. Cheese in Lima, and $399,000 for construction of a Kroger in Lucas County.
* Ohio taxpayers have subsidized a variety of sports stadiums through the Cultural Facilities Commission, including: $73.35 million for the Great American Ballpark and Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati; $36.8 million for Cleveland Browns Stadium; $5.5 million for the Ice Arena in Toledo; and $200,000 for the City of Avalon Minor League Stadium, among others.
* Ohio taxpayers spent $22.4 million in FY 2009 for the State Racing Commission, even though the state already collects taxes on wagers placed at Ohio tracks and distributes the money to supplement purses, promote horse breeding in the state, and undertake research on horses.

"Ohio's elected officials should always spend tax dollars effectively and efficiently," said David Hansen of the Buckeye Institute. "In times of budget deficits, it is especially important that legislators and the governor make every effort to ensure that money is spent only on those government programs which are truly needed. They have yet to make this effort in Ohio."

"The Ohio Piglet Book should be a wake up call to taxpayers and legislators that state spending is out of control. This is only the first step. The Ohio Piglet has identified the excessive spending; it is now time to get rid of it," concluded David Williams of CAGW.

The booklet goes into detail about why many of the items selected constitute 'pork' despite being called 'economic development' by elected officials.

When it comes to 'investment' by the Ohio Department of Development in the Third Frontier program, the booklet states:

In 2007, venture capitalists invested $16.9 billion in the high-tech industry in the United States. It is unclear why Ohio taxpayers need to turn over $126.5 million to supplement what these entrepreneurs are already doing.

They question the $80 million expense for expanding broadband services across the state, pointing out that:

Ohio politicians, however, think that the government needs to be involved in this effort. But 92 percent of Ohioans already have access to broadband. Among those who do not have broadband available, 49 percent say that if it were available they would not use it.

They also note that there is nothing specific in the legislation for the 'broadband initiatives' that detail how the money is to be spent. But if 92% of Ohioans already have such access and half those without it wouldn't use it if available, why does the state need to spend $80 million to reach the remaining 4%???

The book also highlights the lack of accountability in the 'corporate welfare' categories of loans and grants and opposes them, the ridiculousness of the Grape Council, and the lack of economic development outcomes despite the rhetoric when it comes to justification for sports stadiums.

Then there is this on the Ohio Arts Council:

Apparently the OAC is finding it difficult to make the argument that it should receive funding and cannot determine the value that taxpayers receive from the money it bestows on artists. The OAC decided to use some of its money to urge citizens to find such justification. Of course, the OAC puts it another way:

In early 2008 the OAC launched a new initiative called Take pART that aims to gather public value stories from citizens around Ohio. The OAC introduced the idea of public value to its constituents in 2004 as a core concept for Ohio’s arts organizations as we move into a new era for the arts. Public value is difficult to define in concrete terms. The most important thing about public value is that it is something that exists within each community - it is created by the citizens, businesses and organizations of that community. The OAC can’t define public value for the entire state or even for a particular community or organization. Our goal is to help our constituents seek out and define the public value within their own work, within their own community, and to, in turn, help reveal that public value.

There is no doubt that as constituents define the “public value” of their work there will be more pressure on policymakers to increase funding for the OAC. In fact, the OAC has even posted a webpage to “aid you in making the case for the arts in your community and beyond” since “support for the arts and cultural sector is a sound investment of public dollars.” The OAC was kind enough to provide the “resources you need to demonstrate these key points effectively to community leaders and elected officials across the state.” Or, to put it another way, tax dollars are being used to set up a website to provide resources for people to lobby legislators to spend more tax dollars for arts programs.

Of course, when you go through some of the OAC funding, you can see why they have a hard time justifying it:

* $80,834 for the Dayton Philharmonic Orchestra Association.
* $14,165 for experimental visual art that will “develop, design and produce digital public art through the use of photo booths. Apprentices will create photo backdrops for the booths and members of the general public will use the booths to take their photos. Photos will then be broadcast publicly at each of the partner locations including the jumbo LED screen on Cincinnati Center City Fountain Square.”
* $8,188 for the Columbus Dance Theater.
* $7,326 for the Columbus Gay Men’s Chorus.
* $3,023 for the Cleveland Swingband Foundation.45
* $1,295 to Ana Garcia for an apprenticeship in breakdancing that takes place in Brooklyn, New York. The grant will fund a program where “the master and the apprentice will meet four days a week for three hours a day during two weeks in August. The master will teach new movement vocabulary and the history behind uprocking, toprocking, go-downs, footwork, freezes and power moves."

With the severe budget issues the state is facing, are these the priorities we need to fund? As the book says, "There is certainly a place for the arts in Ohio. There is just no reason for the government to find creative ways to fund them."

It comes down to priorities and the Buckeye Institute asks the hard questions in the Piglet book. I hope you'll take the time to read all 23 pages and then write your state legislators about what YOU think the priorities for funding should be.

I don't want to work...

The song "Bang on the Drum," by Todd Rundgren, keeps going through my head as I look at the blue sky and bright sun.

I don't want to work
I want to bang on the drum all day

And it's Friday, too, which makes the feeling even worse...

But, alas, the cold weather means work is actually a viable alternative to banging on a drum all day. So...

Here's a round-up of some interesting stories:

Cassy Fiano has a great post about transparency - or lack thereof - in the Obama administration. She's added a video of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissing a question on access to records and then asking the reporter if he had a 'more pertinent' question. Reporter Jake Trapper then bangs Gibbs upside the head by declaring his quest for transparency 'fairly pertinent.'

Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow is banging on the Fairness Doctrine, by calling it 'accountability' and a 'set of standards.' Of course, she fails to mention her clear conflict of interest during the linked interview. You see, her husband, Tom Anthans, is the former executive vice president of Air America's syndication division and previously ran Democracy Radio, another liberal talk radio upstart, which folded in 2005. In the spring of last year, Athans announced his new venture, Talk USA Radio, though I could find nothing on the Internet about its status today.

No wonder she wants to push for 'balance' ....

Americans are banging up on the so-called stimulus package (aka: porkulus). Rasmussen reports in their latest poll that support for the bill continues to fall with only 37% now in favor. Of course, President Obama is trying to scare us into believing that without the bill, we're doomed, so it needs to be passed right away. However, many people are beginning to think that the rush is just so we don't find out what's really in the bill - like insurance exemptions for companies that make boats bigger than 65 feet in length.

HOPE ON #5 - Pork

With the fifth installment of the HOPE ON project (NeverFindOut.org) focused on pork, it's no surprise to find Porkopolis taking on the subject of Obama on Earmarks.

Mario provides all the details and the documentation of Sen. Barack Obama's requests for spending and then highlights the hypocrisy when the candidate "conveniently called for a hiatus on earmarks during the Presidential campaign."

Haven't we had enough of presidents who say one thing during a campaign only to have them do another once they're in office? Let's never find out if we'll suffer the same fate under Obama.

Why provisions in the bailout are not pork

According to Republican Whip Roy Blunt, the provisions everyone is calling 'pork' in the bailout bill are not 'pork' - at least, not as we've all come to know the term.

From his office:

Why The Tax Cut Extenders Package is Not Pork

The tax extenders package added to the financial rescue plan is not a compilation of tax earmarks intended to reward special interests. To the contrary, the bill contains extensions of dozens of provisions of general applicability that are widely supported across the political spectrum but that must be renewed on a temporary basis, including:

· AMT Patch: Includes a one-year patch of the AMT. If it is not extended, it will subject 21 million additional families to the Alternative Minimum Tax on their 2008 income, with the total tax increase exceeding $62 billion on American families.

· Research and Development Tax Credit: Encourages cutting edge research – and the good jobs it supports – to be conducted here in the U.S.

· State and Local Sales Taxes: Allows taxpayers to deduct state and local sales taxes from their federal income tax returns. This is particularly important in states such as Washington, Tennessee, Texas, and Florida which have no state income tax.

· Renewable Tax Credits: Encourages the installation of wind, solar and biomass power plants, helping reduce our dependence on imported oil.

· Clean Coal: Tax credits for construction of clean coal facilities.

· Other Tax Incentives: Benefits for improving the energy efficiency of homes, appliances, and businesses; Deductions for higher education costs and for the unreimbursed classroom expenses of teachers; Expensing of the clean-up of brownfields, helping to give new life to abandoned industrial areas.

The package includes new provisions that are also important, including:

· Disaster Relief: A package of disaster tax relief, for both specific areas (those impacted by Hurricane Ike and Midwestern floods) as well as broad changes that are applicable to any Presidentially-declared disaster area.

· Refinery Expensing: extends both the refinery expensing contract requirement and the placed-in-service requirement for this expensing provision for two years. The bill also qualifies refineries directly processing shale or tar sands for this provision.

· Payment in Lieu of Taxes: Increases existing funding and fully funds the program through FY2012.

· Secure Rural Schools: Reauthorization of the popular secure rural schools program.

· Mental Health Parity

· Hybrids: New tax credits for plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Suggestions of specific items that are tax “pork” or “earmarks” are off base:

· Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) released a statement condemning the notion that tax cuts are earmarks:

“Calling tax cuts ‘earmarks’ is very unhelpful and completely wrong from a fiscal conservative perspective. There is no such thing as a ‘tax earmark.’ Earmarks are spending. There are appropriations earmarks. There are authorization earmarks. There are no ‘tax earmarks.’ To claim that there are puts tax deductions and credits (which is what we’re talking about here) on the same par as bridges to nowhere.”

· The extension of a provision on excise tax cover-over of rum made in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands but sold in the U.S. is consistent with general tax policy on the treatment of excise taxes paid.

· Similarly, a provision extending the provision giving Section 199 manufacturing treatment to manufacturing in Puerto Rico ensures businesses on that island are not treated less favorably than others in the United States and does not apply to any particular set of taxpayers.

· A provision on excise taxes on practice arrows used by Boy Scouts and summer camps that costs less than $2 million over ten years is necessary to ensure that the excise tax on these arrows is not greater than the cost of the arrows themselves.

· The extension of provisions giving tax benefits for the purchase of mine safety equipment and the training of mine rescue teams are broadly applicable. These were first enacted in the 2006 Tax Relief and Health Care Act, in the wake of serious underground mining accidents.

· A provision relating to the Exxon Valdez case is hardly an earmark; it would allow more than 30,000 victims of the oil spill, who are located across the country, to income average eventual damages and to deposit some of those funds in retirement savings vehicles, like IRAs.

· A provision extending current law tax relief for railroad track maintenance will allow short-line railroads, of which there are over 500 today, to make track improvements to accommodate the heavier rail cars being used today.

· The Wool Trust Fund provision extends a program already in existence to suspend tariffs on wool fabric, thus reducing costs for U.S. suit makers. At the same time, it creates a fund for U.S. wool fabric makers to provide resources to improve their competitiveness.

· The extension of faster depreciation for motorsports tracks benefits dozens and dozens of facilities around the country and represents an effort to conform the depreciation period to the useful life of this type of property. Moreover, this is not a permanent tax cut; it instead allows faster recovery of expenses that would otherwise be deductible. As such, the provision costs less over ten years than it does in its first year.

· The film and television provision allows a single-year deduction for all film and television productions up to $15 million ($20 million if the costs are incurred in economically depressed areas). The provision is not limited in scope or geography – it applies to all film and television productions throughout the country, in any state. Also, current law limits qualifying films to those produced directly "by the taxpayer," which excludes partnerships and S corporation shareholders. The provision treats these parties consistently with other taxpayers who produce films.

· The District of Columbia tax incentives, including a first-time homebuyer’s tax credit and other provisions, has helped revitalize large parts of our nation’s capital after years of blight and neglect.

· The provision relating to economic development in American Samoa affects a population of nearly 60,000 by providing a tax incentive to U.S. companies with income in the Territory. This credit applies equally across industries; eligibility is not limited open to any employer, provided they meet the tests in the bill of being a U.S. company with a possessions’ corporation and actually generate income in American Samoa.

· Tax incentives for employment and business expenses on or near Indian Reservations are not earmarks. Native Americans and Alaskan Natives make up 2.1 million people in the United States; forty percent of Native Americans live on reservations.

Okay - so they may not be 'pork' but the intent is the same. They are provision included in a bill in order to benefit specific entities and designed to bribe particular members of Congress who want these things into voting for a bill they might not otherwise support. Call it 'pork' or 'sweeteners' or 'whatever you want, the purpose is the same.

Pork in the bailout plan? Say it ain't so!

Bill Smith, fellow Samsphere blogger from ARRA News Service, has received a copy of the 'agreement in principle' for the $700 billion bailout which, if left to stand, could have some serious implications for taxpayers.

According to Bill:

In the "agreement in principle," there is the effect of a major "earmark" which commits money from future "profits" to be given to nonprofits organizations like ACORN, National Council of La Raza and potentially the National Urban League. This agreement clearly evidences that the Government expects to benefit in the future from the bailout when the values of property rises and mortgages or properties are then sold by the Federal government. The agreement --

"Directs a certain percentage of future profits to the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund to meet America's housing needs."

In the proposed bailout agreement, Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee and other Democrats desire to pre-direct that future funds (profits) not be returned to the taxpayers via the treasury but that they be used to underwrite potential questionable (maybe even illegal activities) of certain nonprofits which have had a hand in promoting and expanding access to "no money down" loans for minorities, illegal voter registrations and extensive lobbying activities.

I suppose I'm being overly optimistic to think that the current crisis would have taught these idiots a lesson, but I guess not.

The major reason we're in this mess isn't because of 'greed by Wall Street,' but because legislators like Dodd wrote laws to accomplish such social engineering like 'affordable housing,' threatening banks if they didn't increase the number of mortgage loans to minority and low-income individuals. They even went so far as to say that welfare and unemployment payments should be considered as 'earnings' for the purposes of qualifying for loans.

John Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, cites a manual from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in the early '90s that warned mortgage lenders to no longer deny urban and lower-income minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history, down payment or employment income. Those "outdated" criteria:

Credit History: Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor...

Sources of Income: In addition to primary employment income, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will accept the following as valid income sources: overtime and part–time work, second jobs (including seasonal work), retirement and Social Security income, alimony, child support, Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, welfare payments, and unemployment benefits.

The Fed warned the banks:

"Did You Know? Failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or Regulation B can subject a financial institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages in individual or class actions. Liability for punitive damages can be as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the creditor’s net worth in class actions."

Other members of Congress, specifically Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chuck Schumer, fought against reforms in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would have addressed many of the issues before they became a crises.

In Congress, they made sure there was no additional oversight, no additional limit on executive behavior and compensation, and no further restraint on the growth of the companies' mortgage-backed-securities portfolios, among other changes.

Even after the 2003 Freddie Mac accounting scandal, Frank said, "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis."

The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank in 2003 as criticizing Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than ‘concern about housing.'"

And now, they're at it again, attempting to take any profits the government might possibly get from all these 'illiquid' assets and direct them NOT back to the taxpayers whose money is being used, but right back into the very practice that got us into the mess in the first place.

I can only hope that some of the Republicans in Congress, like Rep. Mike Pence, can hold the line.

Warner Todd Huston has some interesting points on this as well.

Red State's commentary on the pork provision.

Tom Coburn on the Founding Fathers and Pork

This is a terrific article in National Review written by Sen. Tom Coburn on what the Founding Fathers would have thought about pork.

"Even though he firmly believed that the power of appropriating federal money belonged only to Congress and that it was necessary to have a clear delineation of authority between the executive and legislative branches of government, Thomas Jefferson also fervently argued against the use of federal funding for local projects. For example, in a 1796 letter to James Madison regarding federally funded local projects, Jefferson wrote, “[O]ther revenues will soon be called into their aid, and it will be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest.” Anyone who has observed the recent tantrums of those who have had their pork challenged knows that Jefferson’s statement was sadly prophetic."

He continues:

"The importance of transparency in government operations was also recognized by Jefferson. In 1808 he wrote, “The same prudence, which, in private life, would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the disposition of public moneys.” And yet, in the United States Senate, senators are freely able to distribute earmarks to organizations from which they solicit campaign contributions without ever having to actually disclose the names of those organizations. Try as they might, it is difficult for earmark enthusiasts to argue that the author of the Declaration of Independence would today endorse the allocation of taxpayer money on “unexplained projects.”"

The entire article is a must-read - and kudos for Sen. Coburn for keeping the fight against pork alive!

UPDATED - If they hadn't spent so much money on pork, would they need a hike in the gas tax?

UPDATE: I've added a note about Investor's Business Daily recent editorial at the bottom of this post.

Just about every media outlet has covered the recommendations coming from the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission's two-year study that was released Tuesday. (report available here)

Basically, the Commission is recommending that the current gasoline tax of 18.4 centers per gallon be raised 40 cents over the next five years. Under their proposal, the tax would go up anywhere from 5 cents to 8 cents each year and then indexed to inflation afterward to help fix the nation's transportation infrastructure.

The study also calls for a new federal bureaucracy to centralize transportation decision making, new limitations on states’ abilities to attract private sector investments and a first of its kind federal tax on all public transportation and intercity passenger rail tickets.

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters, and Commissioners Maria Cino and Rick Geddes, won't sign the final report, releasing their own recommendations under a 'Chairman's Statement.'

From their press release:

“Raising gas taxes won’t improve traffic congestion, it will only perpetuate our ineffective reliance on fossil-based fuels to fund infrastructure and send more of Americans’ hard-earned money to Washington to be squandered on earmarks and special interest programs,” Secretary Peters said. “A better way forward is to provide incentives to states willing to pursue more efficient approaches and to invest federal funds more effectively to give commuters real relief from gridlock.”

The Secretary said she was deeply troubled by the Commission’s call for an up to 40 cent per gallon federal gasoline tax increase over the next five years, rising to up to 91 cents in 20 years when indexed for inflation. She added the report also assumes that states will increase their gas taxes by up to 60 cents per gallon over the next five years. She said recent studies, including one from the Government Accountability Office last summer, have concluded gas taxes don’t work to reduce traffic congestion.

“There is nothing to indicate that Washington would do a better job spending billions more of the taxpayers’ money than it has so far,” said Secretary Peters. “The answer isn’t more taxes and added layers of bureaucracy, it is having the courage to say the current system is broken and it is time to find a better way to invest in, manage and operate our transportation system.”

Here's the thing...following the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) offered an amendment calling on the Senate to place a temporary moratorium on transportation pork until all structurally deficient bridges are repaired. Amazingly, the Senate voted 82-14 to prioritize pork over bridge repairs in the transportation budget. (My previous posts on Sen. Coburn's efforts on the Transportation bill are here and here.)

In July, Taxpayers for Common Sense reported that the FY08 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill contained more than 1,400 earmarks worth a total of nearly $2.2 billion for every state in the nation except, interestingly, Alaska. (Their listing of the earmarks is available here.)

TCS says:

"One of the more interesting aspects of the manager’s report is the discussion about the dire financial straits facing the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The HTF is the account in which all of the nation’s gas tax receipts are deposited for use repairing and building the nation’s highway system. The HTF will run a negative balance sometime in 2009 (since this is the FY08 budget cycle, that’s next year!), yet the Congress and the President fail to make any substantive proposals that would alter this outcome. The Committee unhelpfully points out that the President didn’t propose any new ideas, and then happily slices and dices a number of programs into 1,400 earmarks.

TCS has long maintained that earmarking is one of the problems that has led to this bleak outlook for the HTF. Lack of prioritization has been a huge problem for our nation’s transportation program for many years now. When the money coming out of Washington is so thinly sliced, it spreads it out to too many projects for the trust fund to support. In addition, when transportation decisions are made based on political might (ie. earmarks) instead of on the nation’s true transportation needs, the priorities still need to be funded. Again, this spreads the limited financial resources too thin and the trust fund balance slips toward the red.
...
It is no surprise that the Chair and Ranking of the Appropriations Committee (Reps. Obey (D-WI) and Lewis (R-CA)) and the Transportation-HUD subcommittee (Reps. Olver (D-MA) and Knollenberg (R-MI) were some of the biggest winners in this bill.

* Rep. Olver receives 16 earmarks worth a total of $16.24 million, including $275,000 for the private Barrington Stage Company to renovate the Berkshire Music Hall and Octagon House and $100,000 for a Massachusetts Landscape Connectivity Study
* Rep. Knollenberg receives 11 earmarks worth $6.25 million, including $250,000 for Walsh College, a private college, for completion of its library
* Rep. Obey receives 13 earmarks worth $16.24 million
* Rep. Lewis receives 7 earmarks worth $5.15 million

In all, the Appropriations Committee garners more than $164 million, nearly 23 percent of the $724 million in Congressional adds and increases, yet have only 17 percent of the House’s total membership.

Other earmarks included in the bill:

$100,000 for the Murray Athletic Center at Elmira College (a private institution) in Horseheads, NY, secured by Rep. Rand Kuhl (R-NY)
$250,000 for construction at the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center in Prosser, WA, secured by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
$100,000 for the Wakely Lodge Resort, a golf course, for renovation of the Wakely Lodge in Hamilton, NY, secured by Rep. John McHugh (R-NY)
$81 million (admin request was $74.2 million) for the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD), which is a project of the Mitre Corporation, headquartered in McLean, Virginia and Bedford, Massachusetts. This was not disclosed as an earmark.
$750,000 for the Indian Street Bridge project in Martin, Florida, secured by Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Mahoney (FL).
$1 million (two earmarks) for the Interstate 66 project in Kentucky, secured by Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY).
$1 million for the Ohio River Bridges Project in Louisville, KY, secured by Rep. Yarmuth (D-KY).
$50,000 for the National Forest Recreation Association, for construction of a National Mule and Packers Museum in Bishop, CA, secured by Rep. McKeon (R-CA).
$250,000 for Downtown Roanoke (VA) for Infrastructure renovations for awnings of the historic market, secured by Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA).
$100,000 for the Town of Boydton (VA) for development of the Walking Tour of Boydton, secured by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA)
$250,000 for Phenix City (AL) for riverfront development, secured by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL)

Perhaps if they weren't so busy spending the transportation funds on items like wine and culinary centers, museums, markets, walking tours and golf courses, they'd discover they didn't NEED a new gas tax to cover the costs of transportation infrastructure improvements

In the end, if you give the federal government more money, they will spend it on their own pet projects...all the while claiming they don't have enough money and then voting to make us pay more in taxes...it's a vicious cycle.

The problem isn't a lack of money for the needed infrastructure improvements - it's the lack of making such improvements the priority. If they had been truly interested in the infrastructure, 82 senators wouldn't have voted to table Sen. Coburn's temporary moratorium on transportation pork.

And while I blame Congress for doing this, I also blame the American people for letting it happen.

UPDATE:

A federal panel wants to triple the gasoline tax to improve the nation's infrastructure. A better solution is to limit spending from gasoline tax revenues to essential -- and real -- highway projects, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).
Consider:

* A mere 60 percent of revenues collected from the gas tax are left for essential road work.
* One-tenth of federal transportation spending is pork; in the last transportation bill, more than 6,000 pet projects costing $24 billion drained money away from where it was needed.
* Gas tax revenues are used to fund bike paths, nature trails, pedestrian walkways, visitors centers, public parks, parking lots and museums.

In an era of painfully high retail fuel prices, the average U.S. household is paying roughly $214 in federal gasoline taxes each year, says IBD. Add in state and local levies and the total ranges from $313 in Alaska to $588 in California. Congress shouldn't dare ask for more.

Yes, the country's roads and bridges need work. It would be wrong, though, to pry more money from motorists when the job can be done by spending current revenues they way they are supposed to be spent. The problem is not a lack of revenues, but a lack of character in Washington, says IBD.

Source: Editorial, "Bridge To Our Wallets," Investor's Business Daily, January 16, 2008.

Ohio senators demonstrate their priorities

The Senate voted 68 to 26 today to kill the "The Children's Health Care First Act" today. This amendment would have required Congress to prioritize providing health care to children rather than pork projects for politicians. Senate Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Tom Harkin has stated that the Labor-HHS-Education bill would 'demonstrate to the American people what our priorities are.'

Ohio Senators Brown and Voinovich both voted to table this amendment, effectively killing it for now.

Guess we know what their priorities are...

Ohio senators vote for Rangel's 'Monument to Me'

Amanda Carpenter, National Political Reporter for Townhall.com, included this interesting item in her column today:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.) tried to persuade his fellow Senators to remove a project sponsored by New York Rep. Charles Rangel (D.) that would give $2 million in federal money to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy, the Rangel Conference Center, and the Charles Rangel Library at the City College of New York.

Freshman Rep. John Campbell (R.-Calif.) has sarcastically called the earmark Rangel’s “Monument to Me.”

Promotional literature describes the project as “kind of like a presidential library, but without the president.”

Final vote on the earmark was 61-34 with 13 Republicans voting to keep it in the bill. The wording was to "provide a limitation on funds with respect to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service" so a NAY vote was a vote to keep the $2 million earmark...Ohio's Senators Brown and Voinovich both voted nay. Perhaps they have plans for their own personal monuments at some point in the future?

I just hope they both remember this when they complain about a lack of funds for their own pet projects - remember the Corp of Engineers, Sen. Voinovich?

Sen. Voinovich missed an opportunity

Sen. George Voinovich toured areas of Northwest Ohio yesterday, viewing flood damage and meeting with officials to discuss their response to the storms and their needs going forward.

According to this Blade article, Voinovich says our nation's spending priorities are wrong, bashing the spending in Iraq while criticizing the President for trimming "infrastructure-related budgets - those that deal with items such as rivers, highways, and bridges - because they are too costly."

Voinovich said, "he is frustrated because Americans don't realize how vulnerable the country's infrastructure is and how far behind improvements are.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which addresses flood control, is operating with less federal money and too few engineers, he said."

Unfortunately, Sen. Voinovich seems to have forgotten that the President doesn't spend the money, Congress does. The President requests and submits budgets, but it's Congress who makes the final decision.

And the opportunity the Senator missed? His vote on the recently passed Transportation bill.

I've previously blogged about Sen. Tom Coburn's amendments to cut pork out of this bill. Sen. Coburn's amendment to halt earmarks until all deficient bridges and roads were repaired failed. His amendment to eliminate federal spending on bike paths also failed. His amendment to remove three specific earmarks (baseball stadium, peace garden and tourist 'discovery' center) totaling $1.35 million also failed. In fact, the pork in this bill totaled $8 Billion - yes, Billion with a B - and that's 13.5% of the Transportation Department's $63 billion spending plan.

According to all media reports I could find, Sen. Voinovich voted against these three amendments and then voted for the bill, basically agreeing that $8 billion in pork was more important than other priorities of the federal government - like the Army Corps of Engineers which he says is short money and engineers.

Sen. Voinovich certainly got good press coverage by comparing spending in Iraq to spending on infrastructure, especially in The Blade. But his complaint sounds a bit hollow when his actual votes are taken into consideration.

If it's true that Congress has their spending priorities mixed up - and I'm the first to agree this is the case - it's because of votes like those cast by Voinovich. Sen. Voinovich - if you're going to complain about lack of funds for priorities, you need to vote against non-constitutional spending like baseball stadiums, peace gardens and bike paths.

Pork versus Bridges

Chuck Muth (Citizen Outreach: The Blog), in his 'News & Views' brief, has been keeping track of Sen. Tom Coburn's anti-pork efforts in the Senate.

Coburn had proposed several amendments to the Transportation Bill currently being debated.

One amendment was designed to halt spending on earmarks until deficient roads and bridges are repaired.

It failed.

Another amendment would have eliminated federal spending on bike paths, arguing that federal transportation dollars shouldn't be spent on such local amenities before correcting deteriorating bridges.

It failed.

A third amendment would have removed three specific earmarks from the bill:

* $500,000 for a new baseball stadium in Montana,
* $450,000 for the International Peace Garden in North Dakota,
* $400,000 to construct a "Discovery Center" for tourists in Louisiana.

Now, certainly these are not transportation projects and really don't belong in a transportation bill, if they need federal funding at all.

It failed, too.

On the third amendment, 32 senators (31 R's and 1 D) voted to remove these specific projects - which means about 1/3 of the senate agreed that such projects don't belong in the transportation bill.

On the second amendment, only 18 senators (all R's) indicated that they believe bike paths aren't as important as infrastructure.

On the first amendment, Coburn got only 14 senators (12 R's and 2 D's) to support prioritizing deficient bridge and road repair over their own self interests of pork projects.

As Muth says: "The problem is spending. The problem is Congress. The problem is...how do you stop them?"

Common Sense from Sen. Tom Coburn

"The 1981 transportation bill contained only 10 earmarks. President Reagan vetoed a transportation bill in 1987 that contained 121 earmarks, saying, 'I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair.' In 2005, Congress passed a transportation bill that included an astonishing 6,371 earmarks at a cost of $27.3 billion.

...

The American people understand that transportation earmarks often have more to do with a politician's re-election campaign than the true priorities of each state's department of transportation. While proponents of raising the gas tax are right that 'we can't have a bake sale for bridges,' we can have a pig roast. Spending less on pork will go a long way toward improving the safety of our roads and bridges. If Congress had directed the money we spent on pork in the 2005 highway bill to maintenance we could have repaired more than 30,000 structurally deficient bridges."

- Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, 9/7/07