Mitt Romney Backed Earmarks As Governor -- Attacks Santorum for Earmarks?

One of the biggest attack jobs by Romney against Santorum has been on earmarks, but the investigative journalists from Associated Press have discovered as Governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney was a huge supporter of earmarks for his state.  Believe the word is hypocrite!  When your whole campaign is based on a scorched earth policy against your opponents, you had better be sure that you don't live in a glass house.

Most people's resentment toward earmarks is not the project but the process.  If a project is needed in a state, they should all have to go through the budgeting process and not be approved as part of a bill that is not related to the project.  The earmarks that are boondoggles would never make it out of committee if they were part of the regular budget bill process while necessary projects funding would be approved.  We support having no earmarks and all funding has to go through the budget process.

Flip flop Romney has one more flip flop to add to his list -- he was for earmarks as Governor and against them as a candidate.  Seems Romney and his campaign have forgotten about the internet and the ability of people to go back and see his records even if he destroyed all the hard drives of people in his Administration. Guess he figured since he was running for President he would leave no evidence behind.  Like I said yesterday, he looks more Nixonian the more information we get about Romney.

Mitt Romney Backed Earmarks As Governor
ANDREW MIGA 02/12/12 08:46 AM ET Associated Press  

WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney takes a hard line against congressional earmarks, but the GOP presidential front-runner had a more favorable view of federal pork-barrel spending when he was governor of Massachusetts. 

Under his leadership, Massachusetts sought tens of millions of dollars in earmarks for transportation projects through the state's congressional delegation. 

A prime example was the $30 million that the Romney administration requested to renovate the historic Longfellow Bridge that spans the Charles River between Cambridge and Boston. The landmark is seen in many movies and television shows. 

Romney's transportation secretary, Daniel A. Grabauskas, asked the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to include the money in a transportation spending bill. That bill was full of thousands of earmarks that sparked public furor and became a symbol for Washington's out-of-control spending when Congress passed it in 2005. 

In a letter June 17, 2004, to the transportation panel's chief of staff that was obtained by The Associated Press, Grabauskas said federal money for the Longfellow Bridge could be provided as part of the "bridge program, a new mega-project or an outside earmark, or a combination of the three." Grabauskas did not immediately respond to phone messages from AP seeking comment. 

A Romney campaign spokeswoman would not respond to questions about how many earmarks the Romney administration asked for, the amount of money involved and the particular projects. 

"Every state budget in the country is dependent on federal funding, and every governor in the country makes requests for funding, but governors do not get to decide how Congress appropriates money," said Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman. 

"Gov. Romney supports a permanent ban on earmarks, which are symbols of what's wrong with Washington." 

When Romney was governor and his state was desperately seeking federal dollars to repair crumbling roads and bridges, his administration suggested earmarks for projects to lawmakers on Capitol Hill who were in a position to request the money. 

Romney officials specified projects they wanted included as earmarks in the transportation bill to members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation as the measure moved through Congress, said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

The Romney administration was crystal clear on earmarks and what they wanted," McGovern said. "They sent us a letter specifically asking for money to be earmarked for projects."   

Excerpt:  Read More at the Huffington Post

McCain blasts Gingrich on earmarks

One thing about Senator John McCain is his ability to tell it like it is and the reason his bus was called the Straight Talk Express in 2008.  Don't always agree with him especially when it comes to the Air Force but I admire him for taking on earmarks and pork over the years.  If anyone is an expert, it is John McCain.  When he talks about someone being a porker or earmarker, listen, because he tells it like it is.  He doesn't mince words either.

Another item is the Super PACs and 527's.  Been hearing for sometime that there will be scandals coming out when this election is over if not before.  There is way too much money propping up candidates and have to believe there is coordination going on between the Super PAC and the candidates.  Super PACs don't seem to follow any rules and neither do the 527's.  Any time you cannot discover who is donating and how the money is being spent, then you have a real problem on your hands.  Candidates don't care if it comes out after as long as they get elected.

Ethics is not a word that can be used with this election, but then ethics has not be a strong suit of some of the candidates for a long time.  All you have to do is watch the ads and cringe.  Lies mean nothing as long as it gets a candidate a couple of points jump in the polls or votes in the primary.

The bold in the article is mine.  McCain's words match those of others serving in the House during the time Gingrich was Speaker.  McCain is right there is a reason they won't support Gingrich and time the American people woke up to why.

McCain blasts Gingrich on earmarks
By Cameron Joseph - 01/25/12 12:41 PM ET 

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) slammed Newt Gingrich on earmarks in a Wednesday afternoon conference call hosted by Mitt Romney’s campaign. 

“Speaker Gingrich set into motion the largest explosion of earmarks in the history of Congress,” McCain said. “I was there, I saw the earmarks explode, I saw the corruption that it bred, and I saw the incredible waste of taxpayer dollars.” 

McCain, long a foe of earmarks, endorsed Romney before New Hampshire’s primary. The attack line on Gingrich was the same one he used on Rick Santorum shortly after he endorsed Romney. 

He also said there were two reasons why many House Republicans who served with Gingrich had come out for Romney in recent weeks. “One is because of his electability issue, which is substantiated by the polls,” McCain said. “Also, the fact is he was a failed Speaker: He could not have been reelected as Speaker of the House. His leadership style was a major factor.” 

McCain also downplayed the importance of immigration in the GOP primary but warned that Republicans had to do a better job at reaching out to Hispanic voters. 

“Quite honestly, the issue of the Hispanic vote is an issue for Republicans in the upcoming election and something we need to address,” he said, pointing out that he’d done poorly with Hispanics in 2008. 

The Arizona senator beat Romney in the 2008 GOP presidential primary, and the two were known to have had a testy relationship on the campaign trail. 

They still disagree on campaign finance. Just days after McCain endorsed Romney, the former Massachusetts governor harshly criticized by name the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms. 

McCain said he was “ashamed” of the Supreme Court’s ruling that allowed unlimited donations from people and corporations to outside groups, calling the super-PACs that have emerged “disgraceful.” 

He said that there would likely be a “major scandal” to come from the super-PAC spending and blasted a super-PAC supporting Gingrich, arguing that a “casino owner” giving $10 million to help the candidate was not “what our Founding Fathers had in mind.” 

But when asked about why he was backing Romney, who disagreed with him strongly on the issue, he said it was not the most important thing. “We’ve never agreed on every issue. I think the important issues right now are jobs, the economy and national security,” McCain said.

“I’m pleased to support him,” he said, adding that he looked forward to discussing campaign finance reform further with Romney.   

Source:  The Hill

NOTE:  I don't have a candidate left in the race so I will call it like I see it in the days ahead.  When you start reading about an 'open convention' as the only way to save this election for Republicans on various sites and Twitter, there is a real problem brewing and people like McCain know just how bad it could get.  I believe that Senator McCain should have called a press conference on his own not been hosted by Romney.  He has plenty to say without involving Romney.  Someone in the Romney camp frankly doesn't have a clue about how to run a campaign.

Infrastructure Crumbling is Buzzword for Wasting Tax Dollars

The infrastructure mantra was a bad joke before but with the stimulus, it is turning into a nightmare on the taxpayers.  I have an example in my own neighborhood.  We have a local small, earthen dam which holds back a one-time shallow farm pond from flooding the green belt behind us.  The Oklahoma Water Resources Board told the city that they had to remove the tall trees growing on the dam which I had wondered about for years.  That made sense.  That was the last of making sense.

The City asked for funding from stimulus money for infrastructure to fix the dam.  Lo and behold they are given either $200,000 or $250,000 or $300,000 depending on who you talk to in the city.  All this to remove two large trees?  Once they had the money in their hot little hands, the project has exploded.  The overflow from the dam on the east side of the dam that has worked for over half a century is no longer going to be used.  Instead they removed all vegetation including bushes that had roots less than one foot deep to turn this into huge project with a concrete runway for water that spills into the center of the green belt and leaves standing water. The contractor said it is up to the city to fix the standing water because his contract did not authorize him to go farther than the stakes which is at the bottom of the runway.

It is not over yet after months of work.  That concrete runway is much smaller then the brook area that was used before.  Now they are putting very large rocks on both sides of the runway to take the overflow water.  Use the term runway because it launches water into the center of the green belt where it is expected to run up hill to find its way down the green belt and under the street where it flows into another lake.  The people of this small community decades ago designed the overflow to run downhill all the way to the other lake.  They were smart enough to know that water runs downhill not uphill.  Maybe we should have stayed a separate entity from the large city that absorbed us.

The most disgusting part is the way it is touted as a grant from the Government and when confronted it is our tax dollars you get told "no it is not -- it is the federal government's. money" We have asked several peoiple where do you think the money from the Federal Government comes from and they go "Oh" or won't answer.   My neighbors and I have been talking and have decided that whoever is in charge is not a civil engineer or this wouldn't be happening.  If he is, he needs to go back to college because he has missed some major parts of being a civil engineer.

My neighbors on the green belt and I were never notified this was about to change our whole neighborhood until right before all the dirt and heavy equipment started being brought in to do the work.  Then they put a flyer on our door with little details.  Now we have two areas which will retain water on both sides of the dam which will be havens for the mosquito population. If you have ever heard of the 'Peter Principle,' it is alive and well in my city.

We are just one community where a small project bloomed into a months long expensive project thanks to infrastructure dollars of the stimulus when all they needed to do was remove two trees.  How much more waste is there?  We are betting billions not millions.  This was perfect timing for this article from Cafe Hayek as I hear the large trucks dumping rock now.  I am still waiting to find out how water is going to run up hill!

Crumbling
by Russ Roberts on September 5, 2011 

Whenever someone writes about infrastructure or bridges, they always use the word “crumbling” and say that we have neglected our infrastrucutre. We have to spend more, we’re told. 

It is good to remember this picture from David Leonhardt’s November 2008 column on infrastructure that shows that federal spending on infrastructure as a proportion of GDP was actually higher in 2008 than it had been any time since 1981.

Here is Leonhardt’s assessment of the problem. This, of course, is before the stimulus passed. But Leonhardt was prescient about the problems:

The House recently passed a bill that would allocate $18 billion for new construction projects. Barack Obama has signaled that he will sign a version of that bill and probably ask for tens of billions of dollars of additional spending to create badly needed jobs and help fix up America in the process. Money is going to start flowing. 

And yet when it comes to the nation’s infrastructure, money isn’t the main problem.
A lack of adequate financing is part of the problem, without doubt. But the bigger problem has been an utter lack of seriousness in deciding how that money gets spent. And as long as we’re going to stimulate the economy by spending money on roads, bridges and the like, we may as well do it right. 

It’s hard to exaggerate how scattershot the current system is. Government agencies usually don’t even have to do a rigorous analysis of a project or how it would affect traffic and the environment, relative to its cost and to the alternatives — before deciding whether to proceed. In one recent survey of local officials, almost 80 percent said they had based their decisions largely on politics, while fewer than 20 percent cited a project’s potential benefits.

There are monuments to the resulting waste all over the country: the little-traveled Bud Shuster Highway in western Pennsylvania; new highways in suburban St. Louis and suburban Maryland that won’t alleviate traffic; all the fancy government-subsidized sports stadiums that have replaced perfectly good existing stadiums. 

These are the Bridges to (Almost) Nowhere that actually got built. 

They help explain why our infrastructure is in such poor shape even though spending on it, surprisingly enough, has risen at a good clip in recent decades. 

Spending is up 50 percent over the last 10 years, after adjusting for inflation. As a share of the economy, it will be higher this year than in any year since 1981.
So if you talk to people who spend their lives studying infrastructure, you’ll hear two reactions to the attention that Mr. Obama, Nancy Pelosi and even some 

Republicans are now lavishing on the subject. The first is: Thank goodness. The second is: Please, please don’t just pour more money into the current system. 

“The system is fundamentally broken. We send a blank check and kind of hope for the best,” Robert Puentes, the infrastructure maven at the Brookings Institution, told me. “We need an extreme makeover.”

We’re always being told that we need to spend more money to fix the problem. That is much easier than fixing how the money is spent.
Source:  Cafe Hayek

Senator Tom Coburn: Earmark Myths and Realities

If there is one person in the United States Senate who can speak against earmarks in a manner to make everyone understand, it is Dr. Coburn who does not take earmarks. He has been fighting against them for years along with pork. It is great to see so many members of the House and Senate now agreeing with Dr. Coburn. When you see the list of earmarks for Oklahoma, you see a "0" next to Dr. Coburn.

In looking around for the best explanation we went to his op-ed at The National Review which gives clear and concise answers to the debate. Oklahoma just reelected Dr. Coburn in overwhelming numbers to send him back to DC for six more years. Frankly, we wouldn't mind seeing him run for President because he has more common sense in his little finger when it comes to what is the right thing to do for Americans then some people have in their whole body. Arrogance is also not a word you see association with Senator Coburn.

If the Congress and Administration had listened to Dr. Coburn, Sen Burr (R-NC), Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI), and Rep Deavin Nunes (R-CA) on their bicameral plan for healthcare, The Patient's Choice Act, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today with Obamacare. Obama/Pelosi/Reid didn't even bother to consider this plan and it died without being taken up in Committe. Time for Rep Ryan and Rep Nunes to reintroduce it in the House after January 3rd. Maybe we have the votes now in the Senate to at least get it heard in Committee.

Might be a good idea for the Senate to start paying more attention to what Dr. Coburn has to say when it comes to legislation -- American people would sure be better off.

Earmark Myths and Realities

November 10, 2010 4:39 P.M. By Sen. Tom Coburn

As Senate Republicans prepare to vote on an earmark moratorium, I would encourage my colleagues to consider four myths and four realities of the debate.

Myths of the earmark debate:

1. Eliminating earmarks does not actually save any money

This argument has serious logical inconsistencies. The fact is earmarks do spend real money. If they didn’t spend money, why defend them? Stopping an activity that spends money does result in less spending. It’s that simple. For instance, Congress spent $16.1 billion on pork in Fiscal Year 2010. If Congress does not do earmarks in 2011, we could save $16.1 billion. In no way is Congress locked into to shifting that $16.1 billion to other programs unless it wants to.

2. Earmarks represent a very tiny portion of the federal budget and eliminating them would do little to reduce the deficit

It’s true that earmarks themselves represent a tiny portion of the budget, but a small rudder can help steer a big ship, which is why I’ve long described earmarks as the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington. No one can deny that earmarks like the Cornhusker Kickback have been used to push through extremely costly and onerous bills. Plus, senators know that as the number of earmarks has exploded so has overall spending. In the past decade, the size of government has doubled while Congress approved more than 90,000 earmarks.

Earmarks were rare until recently. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a spending bill because it contained 121 earmarks. Eliminating earmarks will not balance the budget overnight, but it is an important step toward getting spending under control.

3. Earmarking is about whose discretion it is to make spending decisions. Do elected members of Congress decide how taxes are spent, or do unelected bureaucrats and Obama administration officials?

It’s true that this is a debate about discretion, but some in Congress are confused about discretion among whom. This is not a struggle between the executive branch and Congress but between the American people and Washington. Do the American people have the right to spend their own money and keep local decisions at the local level or does the federal government know best? Earmarks are a Washington-knows-best solution. An earmark ban would tell the American people that Congress gets it. After all, it’s their money, not ours.

An earmark moratorium would not result in Congress giving up one iota of its spending power. In any event, Republicans should be fighting over how to cut government spending, not how to divide it up.

4. The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility and authority to earmark

Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to do earmarks. The concept of earmarking appears nowhere in the enumerated powers or anywhere else in the Constitution. The so-called “constitutional” argument earmarks is from the same school of constitutional interpretation that led Elena Kagan to admit that Congress had the authority to tell the American people to eat their fruits and vegetables every day. That school, which says Congress can do whatever it wants, gave us an expansive Commerce Clause, Obamacare, and a widespread belief among members of Congress that the “power of the purse” is the power to pork.

Earmark defenders are fond of quoting Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which says, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” They also refer to James Madison’s power of the purse commentary in Federalist 58. Madison said the “power of the purse may, in fact, be the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.”

Yet, earmark proponents ignore the rest of the Constitution and our founders’ clear intent to limit the power of Congress. If the founders wanted Congress to earmark funds to specific recipients, micromanage American society, and ride roughshod over state and local government they would have given Congress that authority in the enumerated powers. They clearly did not.

Our founders anticipated earmark-style power grabs from Congress and spoke against such excess for the ages. James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, spoke directly against federally-funded local projects. “[I]t 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.” Jefferson understood that earmarks and coercion would go hand in hand.

Also, if earmarks were a noble constitutional tradition, how did we thrive for 200 years without an earmark favor factory in Congress?

Finally, for those worried about ceding constitutional authority to the executive branch, I would respectfully remind them that the president has zero authority to spend money outside of the authority Congress gives him. The way to hold the executive branch accountable is to spend less and conduct more aggressive oversight. Earmarks are a convoluted way for Congress to try to regain authority they have already ceded to the executive branch through bad legislation. The fact is there is nothing an earmark can do that can’t be done more equitably and openly through a competitive grant process.

Beyond these myths, I would encourage members to consider the following realities.

1. Earmarks are a major distraction

Again, earmarks not only do nothing to hold the executive branch accountable — by out-porking the president — but take Congress’ focus away from the massive amount of waste and inefficiency within federal agencies. In typical years, the number of earmark requests outnumbers oversight hearings held by the Appropriations Committee by a factor of 1,000 to 1. Instead of processing tens of thousands of earmark requests the Senate should increase the number of oversight hearings from a few dozen to hundreds. The amount of time and attention that is devoted to the earmark chase is a scandal waiting to be exposed.

2. This debate is over among the American people and the House GOP

If any policy mandate can be derived from the election it is to spend less money. Eliminating earmarks is the first step on that path. The House GOP has accepted that mandate. The Senate GOP now has to decide whether to ignore not only the American people but their colleagues in the House. The last thing Senate Republicans should be doing is legislative gymnastics to get around the House GOP earmark ban.

3. Earmarking is bad policy

In recent years the conventional wisdom that earmarks create jobs has been turned on its head. The Obama administration’s stimulus bill itself, which is arguably a collection of earmarks approved by Congress, proves this point. Neither Obama’s stimulus nor Republican stimulus — GOP earmarks — is very effective at creating jobs.

Harvard University conducted an extensive study this year of how earmarks impact states. The researchers expected to find that earmarks drive economic growth but found the opposite.

“It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman’s state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending,” said Joshua Coval, one of the study’s authors. The study found that as earmarks increase capital investment and expenditures by private businesses decrease, by 15 percent specifically. In other words, federal pork crowds out private investment and slows job growth. Earmarks are an odd GOP infatuation with failed Keynesian economics that hurts local economies.

Earmarks also crowd out funding for higher-priority items. Transportation earmarks are a good example. Pork projects like the Bridge to Nowhere and bike paths divert funds from higher priority projects according to a 2007 Department of Transportation inspector general report. Thousands of bridges continue to be in disrepair across America in part because Congress has taken its eye off the ball and indulged in parochial spending.

4. Earmarking is bad politics

If the Senate GOP wants to send a signal that they don’t get it and are not listening they can reject an earmark moratorium. For Republicans, earmarks are the ultimate mixed message. We’ll never be trusted to be the party of less spending while we’re rationalizing more spending through earmarks. The long process of restoring fiscal sanity in Washington begins with saying no to pork.

— Sen. Tom Coburn represents the state of Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate.

SourceNational Review.com

Troop funds diverted to pet projects

When are we going to hear this from the Obama lapdog media? We have so few media outlets willing to cover this Administration and tell the truth. This is a travesty on top of attaching 'hate crimes' legislation to the Defense bill. These Progressives are playing with the lives of our men and women in the military overseas not to mention all of our lives by short changing our military just like was done in the Clinton years. What is with Progressive Democrats and their lack of concern about our national security? Kum By Ya doesn't cut it in today's dangerous world where we have muslim extremists who want to kill Americans.

Troop funds diverted to pet projects
Washington Times
by Shaun Waterman
10/15/2009 1:27:39 AM

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

Excerpt: Full Article at Washington Times