Earmarks. Go figure.

This morning from Senator Claire McCaskill (D), via Twitter:

Claire McCaskill ‏@clairecmc
Drain the swamp?Week after election Republicans meeting behind closed doors to grant lobbyists dream of bringing back earmarks.Hello swamp.
11:01 AM – 16 Nov 2016

Previously:

Can you find common ground with Stephen Bannon? (November 14, 2016)

Todd Akin is out with a fanciful new ad. In it he claims that, “federal stimulus spending ‘made McCaskill rich.'” (Not to distract from the main point, but wasn’t she rich before the stimulus?) Apropos the ad, Akin asserts:

…  Claire McCaskill is on record for going through the stimulus line by line, and stated that the stimulus was solely for creating jobs and stimulating the economy, […]. Now we know that McCaskill’s family business received $1 million of taxpayer money from the stimulus bill that she voted for. I voted against this bill because I did not believe it would help the economy and because pork-barrel spending can neither stimulate the economy nor create jobs.

As reported in Politico, McCaskill’s campaign strongly denied the implications of financial impropriety:

McCaskill’s campaign reached out to take strong exception to the charges leveled in the Akin ad, and provided documentation that some of the claims in the commercial are misleading or wrong. The critical data point is that Akin’s ad says McCaskill’s husband, Joseph Shepard, pulled in $1 million from investments in government-subsidized housing projects — but his share of investment in those projects was actually less than 5 percent, leaving him with far less than $1 million in income. What’s more, McCaskill’s campaign says that the payments Shepard received from the government were for contracts that predated the stimulus, and that the government would have been legally required to pay out regardless of whether the stimulus was passed

So much for Akin’s quest to expose a stimulus related scandal. I suspect that if he continues to pursue this line, he may end up feeling a little nostaligic for the “wildcat” McCaskill he credited himself with uncaging. How can it possibly help Akin to make such flimsily-supported allegations of financial irregularities given the recently-revived accusations that he used earmarks for personal gain. The accusations were based on a report published in the the Washington Post:

Across the nation, 33 members of Congress have helped direct more than $300 million in earmarks to dozens of public projects for work in close proximity to commercial and residential real estate owned by the lawmakers or their family members.

Between 2005 and 2009, Akin helped secure $3.3 million to upgrade part of Route 141 in his district west of St. Louis. Less than a half-mile east of Route 141, Akin and his family own nine acres. Akin’s family has applied to construct six homes on the land. His spokesman said Akin’s land had no bearing on his support for the earmarks. “It is going to be helpful as a connector but not helpful for residential property values whatsoever,” he said.

Sound a little fishy to you too? Well then, if you’re interested in still more Akin related dirt, bend your mind around what he said in this video:

I’m in a three-way primary for the US Senate. I’ve gone to people and asked for their support, their help, or their endorsement, and some people say yes. They write me a decent check. I remember that. The people that I thought were friends that tell me to go away because they are supporting someone else, I remember that. You know, I can remember back to 12 years ago. You remember who’s helping you. That’s one way that people get to know congressmen and senators.

The video is titled, “Akin bragged about being a congressman for sale,” and I can surely see how somebody might think that – but could anybody really be that dumb?

But enough of elaborating on the soot that adorms our pot, Todd Akin. I can’t help wondering if this risky new ad has anything to do with desperation. Claire McCaskill’s campaign has just released an internal poll showing her up over Akin by nine points. As Daily Kos’s Steve Singiser observes:

Now that Republican gaffe machine Todd Akin cannot be replaced on the ballot, you have to love the fact that the campaign of Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill decided to lower the boom with a new poll out of the Show-Me State. Her poll shows that she holds a pretty solid 50-41 lead over Akin. But what is even more awesome: it shows that she had a six-point lead in an early September survey. One that…ahem…was never released. Well played, team McCaskill. Well played!

Numerous news outlets are reporting that Rep. Todd Akin will support an earmark ban in order to get some campaign support from U.S. Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund. I appreciate that beggers can’t be choosers, but wasn’t it just a month or two ago when Akin was vociferously defending his earmarking practices?  I think he even produced an ad contending that his wise earmarking saved lives. (Of course, the subject only came up because John Brunner was making the claim that Akin’s judicious use of earmarks also made the Akin family a little bit richer.) As the Post-Dispatch notes, Akin explicitly defends earmarks on his congressional Website:

Some believe Congress should be prohibited from designating where money should be spent. While well-intentioned, such action violates the Constitution and shifts important spending decisions from elected representatives in Congress to unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.. This is not the right path. Rather, such spending decisions should be carefully vetted  during the committee process-a process that is open and transparent to the public.

Contrast that with a recently posted statement on Akin’s campaign Website that purports to “set the record straight”:

Claire McCaskill has questioned Todd’s position on earmarks. For the record Todd’s position on earmarks has been clear and consistent and is not in conflict with Senator DeMint’s ban on earmarks.

I’ve always known that Akin was logic-challenged, but come on! Not even the divinely inspired Todd Akin can be against something and for it at the same time. Especially after he defended that something for years by arguing that it’s a constitutional mandate.

That’s probably why Akin’s statement is so vague, and, on the theory that the best defense is offense, veers post-haste into an attack against Claire McCaskill’s hypothetical earmarking practices. It seems that, according to Akin, McCaskill – who introduced legislation to ban earmarks – is a hypocrite because she voted for the stimulus, and Akin is an advocate of the theory that the stimulus was chock-full of wasteful earmark spending. Of course, whether or not the stimulus contained earmarks is debatable and depends largely on how one defines earmarks.  Even Politifact, which identified a few earmarks in the bill, conceded that “It’s worth noting again that Obama managed to get a bill that was largely free of earmarks.”

To summarize: Akin believes that earmarks are the best thing since apple pie (and he may have even pocketed some of that metaphorical pie), but he has no problem supporting a ban and thinks it’s consistent with his beliefs. His opponent, however, who has never taken an earmark, and consistently worked to get them banned, is an earmarking queen because she voted for a stimulus bill that was largely free of earmarks. Laughable? Maybe, but I bet it’ll go over great guns with Akin’s hardcore supporters who’ve been well trained to howl when they hear the word “stimulus.”

Relative to which, there was another prong to the Akin attack that hinged on citing some of the items in a list of “wasteful” stimulus projects bandied about by several GOP congressmen a couple of years ago. Here Akin’s logic seems to be that earmarks are often characterized as wasteful, so if you can show that there was waste in the stimulus, it must be because it was full of earmarks.  

Unfortunately for Akin’s logically twisted agenda, there may be some problems when it comes to demonstrating that the stimulus was larded with waste. NewsWeek‘s McKay Coppins looked at five of the items from the GOP list, two of which are cited by Akin as examples of wasteful stimulus spending, and found that they mostly did what the stimulus was supposed to do – create jobs. One would suspect, given the partisan rancor that obviously inspired the list, many more of those “wasteful” spending projects did so as well. And, in fact, an audit of the program reported in 2010 that:

…  Of the nearly 200,000 prime and sub contracts that the Recovery Act awarded, just 293 led to “consequential investigations” of fraud. That’s 0.2 percent-i.e., two-tenths of a percent. Given the amount of money we’re talking here, that’s astonishingly clean, even by private sector standards.

Lest you think this is just the Obama Administration whitewashing its own record-and me whitewashing their whitewashing-the General Accounting Office has reached the same conclusion, calling the amount of waste and fraud minimal. …

A small price to pay for saving us from another Great Depression.  

Let’s see:  John Brunner, a multi-millionaire, is running an ad attacking Todd Akin, a poor man by Brunner’s standards, claiming that Akin secured earmarks that were intended to  benefit him personally:

Brunner’s campaign is running advertisements accusing Akin of securing millions in federal funding for the highway project to increase the value of the acre plot and has said the six-term lawmaker has tried to hide his stake in the land.

Akin disputs the corruption claim, of course. On his campaign Webpage, he states that the property was his parents and the “project was a critical priority to local leaders across the political spectrum.” He then pivots, attempting to change the subject to spending issues per se rather than corruption, noting that he has “returned over $1.3 million to the tax payers by managing his Congressional office with fiscal responsibility.”

I’ve got to hand it to Akin – putting what is estimated to be billions in earmarks in the balance against a paltry million and change in office expenses does indeed have the hallmarks of what he identifies as “conservative leadership in action.” It’s certainly of a piece with current conservative leaders who jabber about balancing the budget by cutting the paltry amounts allocated to social spending while leaving the big-ticket items like military spending untouched.

Akin also produced an ad in which he attempts the same strategy of refocusing the earmarks issue on something other than Brunner’s actual implications that he used earmarks to enrich himself; he tries to show that when it comes to earmarks, he’s on the side of the angels. In the ad, a young woman, Liezi, defends Akin’s earmarking:

Roadside bombs were killing our troops, the vehicles didn’t have enough armor. Congressman Todd Akin went to Iraq, and after an investigation helped get newly armored vehicles to our troops. After getting the new armor, my husband’s humvee was hit. He’s alive today because of Todd Akin. Now Todd Akin is being attacked for supporting what some call earmarks. But just remember, that funding for armor saved my husband’s life.

What “some” call earmarks! Is she trying to imply that Akin’s earmarks are called something else? Manna from God, maybe? I hate to break it to Todd and his friend Leizi, but I think almost everybody calls earmarks … earmarks. Nevertheless, it’s all fine and good as far as I’m concerned, even though it’s not clear that Akin deserved all the credit for Leizi’s husband’s survival:

Actually, it was another congressman – not Akin – who inserted the earmark requiring the additional armored vehicles in 2003 or 2004, said Akin campaign spokesman Ryan Hite. What Akin did, he explained, was support the earmark and then lobby the Pentagon to get the vehicles on the ground in Iraq.

So what’s the real story about Akin and earmarks? According to Kansas City’s KMBC-TV, he bowed to the realities of the budgeting process, tried to get what he could, and, in spite of all his self-righteous rhetoric about government spending, was at least occasionally willing to toe the GOP line when it came to hidden GOP earmarks:

Critics said Akin has voted for hundreds of earmarks that are worth billions. Before 2008, earmarks weren’t tracked well. Since then, the website Open Secrets said Akin has sponsored or co-sponsored 32 earmarks worth $99 million.

“I absolutely refuse to stand by while Missouri tax dollars go to California or Illinois,” Akin said. “I’m not going to do that.”

Akin said he doesn’t support hidden earmarks, but he voted for one of the most famous examples of that. In 2005, he joined other Republicans to fund Alaska’s so-called “bridge to nowhere.”

Looks to me like Brunner’s effort to paint Akin’s earmarking activities as corrupt are pretty weak, and, as several sources have noted, likely to boomerang on him. He has, however, managed to highlight the Tea Party caucus member’s hyprocrisy. As I wrote about Akin’s earmarking in 2010, what’s interesting is the ” gap between general GOP spending rhetoric and behavior.” That’s still true – and, in this case at least, the fact’s not lost on the feared (by wingers) Club for Growth. Some days you just can’t win for losing.

Here’s one of Roy Blunt recent tweets:

I voted against an amdt to cede one of Congress’s core constitutional duties to Pres Obama & unaccountable bureaucrats bit.ly/wm6Lt4

Care to hazard a guess about what that means? If you’re curious, just follow the link, which leads you to a press release where you’ll learn that Blunt’s congratulating himself on his vote to preserve earmarks.

So why didn’t the Senator just say so? Could it be because earmarks pose a problem for him? Blunt’s for ’em. Lots of the right wingers he relies on are agin ’em. (Here’s a golden-oldie from RedState’s Erik on topic of Blunt and earmarks). Because these are the folks who held their nose and promoted Blunt to the Senate despite his lobbyist-loving, high-spending, big government ways, I’m betting that the double-speak above is meant to help finesse his earmarking proclivities with that important constituency. Consider this passage from his press release:

Directing federal spending is a congressional responsibility that is mandated by the U.S. Constitution, and lawmakers do our constituents a disservice by statutorily yielding this power to the White House and to the thousands of nameless, faceless bureaucrats in Washington who are completely unaccountable to the people whose dollars they spend.

The largest Obama earmark was the President’s nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill, which was doled out without congressional input and ultimately failed to create or save the jobs that were promised by the White House. Most recently, we witnessed what happens when President Obama is given unbridled power during the Solyndra debacle – just one piece of the stimulus that proved to be a reprehensible waste of taxpayers’ dollars

Nameless, faceless bureaucrats! Imagine! But that’s just one of the Pavlovian bells and whistles embedded in this seemingly bland piece of apparent boiler-plate; there’s a constitutional something-or-the-other (anything modified by constitutional goes over big with the Tea Partiers), tried and true and, incidentaly, demonstrably false, anti-stimulus rhetoric, and the pretense that the pathetic effort to make noise about the small-peas Solyndra failure represents something more than a GOP desperate for at least one good Obama administration scandal.

To give you an idea about just how canned these references are, and how divorced from reality, consider the almost ritual evocation of the stimulus. If I remember correctly, lots of GOPers were decrying the stimulus as nothing but earmarked pork – while, at the same time, many were trying to get as big a bite of that pork as they could manage.  Senator Blunt chooses to ignore this aspect of the stimulus spending. We do learn, however, that because the bulk of the stimulus was allocated by government agencies according to formulas that guarantee a certain degree of accountability, Blunt thinks it was “Obama’s earmark,” which, in spite of his approval of earmarks, he believes to be a bad thing. My mind reels.

The poet Charles Simic, writing about the New Hampshire GOP primary in the New York Review of Books (Feb. 23) (accessible to subscribers only), made a telling observation about how synthetic and empty conservative rhetoric has become:

A local newspaper editor told me that the opinions in the many letters and e-mails he receives have become less identifiable as written by distinct individuals than ever before. From their prose it seems that their minds were apparently made up by someone else. Practically every businessman will tell you the same thing about the economy, he said; practically all the social conservatives will say that what’s wrong with this country is its moral values. The letters to the editor he receives increasingly use identical words and phrases that come from flyers the writers receive in the mail.

One could say much the same thing about the statements of GOP pols like Blunt. From focus groups and strategists to politicians’ mouths, and finally, to Tea Partiers’ ears, it’s all the same. Simic begins his NYR essay with a quote from Samuel Beckett’s Murphy that sums it up nicely:

The fool in league with the knave against himself is a combination that none may withstand.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City (January 20, 2011)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): ….I was surprised when Vicky Hartzler told me that she would take earmarks, she would seek earmarks, so….

On television in the Kansas City market this morning, from Patriot Majority:

Announcer: If it sounds too good to be true…

Senator John Cornyn (r): I think we need am earmark moratorium…

Senator Mitch McConnell (r): …support of a moratorium on earmarks…

Speaker John Boehner (r): …have an earmark moratorium…

Announcer: …it probably is.

Last year Congress said they were going to end earmarks. And then requested thirty-nine thousand of them, back room deals that would cost one hundred and twenty-nine billion taxpayer dollars.

Some in Congress are trying to end earmarks.

[Two Senators Propose New Earmarks Ban, CNN, 11/30/11]

For others it’s just business as usual.

It’s time to pass the Earmark Elimination Act and end earmarks for good.

[Paid For By Patriot Majority USA. http://www.patriotmajority.org]

The Earmark Elimination Act:

S.1930 — Earmark Elimination Act of 2011 (Placed on Calendar Senate – PCS)

S 1930 PCS

Calendar No. 243

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1930

To prohibit earmarks.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 30, 2011

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself, Mrs. MCCASKILL, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

December 1, 2011

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

A BILL

To prohibit earmarks.

   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

   This Act may be cited as the `Earmark Elimination Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EARMARKS.

   (a) Bills and Joint Resolutions, Amendments, Amendments Between the Houses, and Conference Reports-

       (1) IN GENERAL- It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider a bill or resolution introduced in the Senate or the House of Representatives, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conference report that includes an earmark.

       (2) PROCEDURE- Upon a point of order being made by any Senator pursuant to paragraph (1) against an earmark, and such point of order being sustained, such earmark shall be deemed stricken.

   (b) Conference Report and Amendment Between the Houses Procedure- When the Senate is considering a conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses, upon a point of order being made by any Senator pursuant to subsection (a), and such point of order being sustained, such material contained in such conference report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion of the conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate shall be debatable under the same conditions as was the conference report. In any case in which such point of order is sustained against a conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be in order.

   (c) Waiver- Any Senator may move to waive any or all points of order under this section by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

   (d) Definitions-

       (1) EARMARK- For the purpose of this section, the term `earmark’ means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives as certified under paragraph 1(a)(1) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate–

           (A) providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;

           (B) that–

               (i) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and

               (ii) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such provision; or

           (C) modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.

       (2) DETERMINATION BY THE SENATE- In the event the Chair is unable to ascertain whether or not the offending provision constitutes an earmark as defined in this subsection, the question of whether the provision constitutes an earmark shall be submitted to the Senate and be decided without debate by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

   (e) Application- This section shall not apply to any authorization of appropriations to a Federal entity if such authorization is not specifically targeted to a State, locality or congressional district.

Calendar No. 243

[emphasis in original]

From Senator Claire McCakill’s (D) office:

Toomey, McCaskill introduce permanent ban on earmarks

November 30, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) introduced the bipartisan Earmark Elimination Act of 2011 today. This legislation would build on the temporary moratorium on earmarks scheduled to expire at the end of 2012 and would permanently ban earmarks from the legislative process.

The legislation would:

·         Permanently ban all earmarks.

·         Define earmarks as any congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.

·         Create a point of order against any legislation containing an earmark. The point of order would only apply to the actual earmark, rather than to the entire bill.

·         Require a two-thirds vote to waive the point of order.

Unfortunately, a number of congressional members are clamoring to reinstate the wasteful earmarking process that forced taxpayers to fund such pet projects as the Bridge to Nowhere. According to The Washington Post, lawmakers are trying to fund special-interest projects by finding loopholes i
n the current earmark moratorium. In addition, the chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee has vowed: “I am going to do everything to reinstate earmarks.” (Roll Call, 10/04/11)

Sens. Toomey and McCaskill are no strangers to the fight against wasteful earmarks. A year ago, then-Sen.-Elect Toomey and Sen. McCaskill penned a joint op-ed urging Congress to end wasteful earmarks and “business as usual” in Washington. Today, they are continuing to champion this cause on behalf of American taxpayers.

“With some members of Congress clamoring for a return to wasteful earmark spending, it is time for Congress to make the current moratorium on special-interest giveaways a permanent ban,” Sen. Toomey said. “For years, earmarks played a role in fueling the overspending in Washington and undermining the integrity of our legislative process. We cannot afford to allow Congress to resume earmarking and playing pork barrel politics with taxpayer dollars.”

“I’ve always opposed earmarks and have never backed down from a fight,” Sen. McCaskill said. “When I got to the Senate and sought to end earmarking, folks patted me on the head, and said that earmarks weren’t going away because they were part of the culture. In time, we achieved a temporary ban on earmarks. But it’s not enough. With politicians on both sides of the aisle creatively trying to get around the ban, and talking openly about ending it, it’s time to end earmarks permanently.”

###

“….I was surprised when Vicky Hartzler told me that she would take earmarks, she would seek earmarks, so….”

Are you listening, Vicky? Probably not. The teabagger base isn’t paying attention either. Besides, * IOKIYAR.

Previously:

Earmarks: Senator Claire McCaskill (D) v Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r), sort of (December 12, 2011)

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): Patriot Majority running a supportive ad (December 13, 2011)

* it’s okay if you’re a republican

Congressional earmarks.

That was then….

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City (January 20, 2011)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): ….I was surprised when Vicky Hartzler told me that she would take earmarks, she would seek earmarks, so….

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Blue Springs, part 1 (April 29, 2011)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): ….And say, well, let’s get rid of earmarks. I’m like, yeah, that’s a good idea….

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Blue Springs, part 3 (May 1, 2011)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): ….the Path to Prosperity budget that we passed….

….It cuts six point two trillion. We know that. Uh, bans earmarks, corporate welfare….

…this is now. A press release from Senator Claire McCaskill’s (D) office:

McCaskill report reveals 100-plus earmarks secretly passed by House

Senator investigated amendments to House Defense bill, found Representatives flaunting self-imposed earmark ban

December 12, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. – After months of work combing through a national defense spending proposal, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill today released an explosive report finding that members of the U.S. House of Representatives attempted to circumvent their own self-imposed ban on earmarks, and that hundreds of earmarks were secretly attached to the House’s National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (NDAA) by the House Armed Services Committee.

McCaskill’s report uncovers an elaborate scheme put in place by the House Armed Services Committee Chairman that was designed explicitly to allow his committee’s members to earmark in violation of the ban on earmarks in Congress

“This has to be a record turnaround for members of the House who claimed to be giving up their addiction to earmarks,” said McCaskill, who recently introduced bipartisan legislation to permanently ban earmarks from the legislative process.  “These Representatives can insist all they want that they don’t do earmarking anymore-but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.  And it demonstrates exactly why we need my bipartisan legislation to permanently ban earmarks….”

[emphasis in original]

There’s more, from a database of National Defense Authorization Act earmarks provided by Senator McCaskill’s (D) office:

House FY 2012 NDAA Earmark Tracker

Amendment # 8

Member Hartzler

Party Affiliation, State R, MO

Subcommittee Seapower

Considered En Bloc or Standalone? En Bloc 1

Approved in what manner Voice Vote

Amount (in thousands) 20,000 [$20 million]

Description For the development of mixed conventional load capability for bomber aircraft to prosecute a broad range of pre-planned and rapidly emerging target sets (Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Program)

Offset Used (in thousands where denoted) Sec. 4201 of Division D, related to RDT&E, Navy reduction of Line 227U Undistributed

Possible Recipient Units located at Whiteman Air Force base, specifically the B-2 bomber

Past Request for similar projects No

[….]

This request would add funds to the Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Program to develop mixed conventional load capability for bomber aircraft.  This account has not received Congressional Adds in the past.  However, in her May 13, 2011 press release on the NDAA, Hartzler states that Whiteman Airforce Base, located in her district, and wher[e] the B-2 aircraft is based, will benefit from the funding provided by this amendment. This request would double the size of the fund this year.  Given the statements made by Congresswoman Hartzler that these funds will benefit Whiteman AFB, it appears the funding provided by this ame[n]dment is intended to supprot [sic] the B-2 aircraft based at Whiteman AFB, in her district.  

Amendment # 108

Member Hartzler

Party Affiliation, State R, MO

Subcommittee Readiness

Considered En Bloc or Standalone? En Bloc 2

Approved in what manner Voice Vote

Amount (in thousands) 20,000 [$20 million]

Description Operation faculties in the amount of $20 million for Air Force construction (Air Force construction and land acquisition projects and operational facilities)

Offset Used (in thousands where denoted) None specified

Possible Recipient Whiteman AFB

Past Request for similar projects No

[….]

This amendment adds $20 million to Air Force MilCon line item for operational facilities.  Hartzler’s predecessor, Ike Skelton, secured $24.05 million for Whiteman Air Force Base in the Mil Con AF account of the FY11 NDAA that passed in the House. However, before final passage all the congressionally directed spending items, including this one were stripped from the bill.  Whiteman Airforce Base is located in Knob Noster, MO which is in Hartzler’s district.

“…And say, well, let’s get rid of earmarks. I’m like, yeah, that’s a good idea….” (April 29, 2011)

From Representative Hartzler (r):

Congresswoman Hartzler secures prominent role for FLW and Whiteman AFB in protecting national security

May 13, 2011 Issues: Immigration, Defense and National Security

….Hartzler was also able to secure $40 million in Air Force funds for vital national security needs.

“Half of this $40 million will allow us to house alert air crews in facilities closer to where they are needed to prepare for and to execute vital national security missions,” added Hartzler. “The remaining $20 million will support mixed conventional load capability for Air Force bombers, allowing them to hold a wide range of munitions. I believe this increase in funding willensure our air crews have the full capabilities necessary to protect this country….”

[emphasis added]

“…if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck…”

Anyone think the teabaggers are aware of this? Anyone think they really care? * IOKIYAR.

* it’s okay if you’re a republican

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) on the floor of the Senate last night:

…I have made a decision that earmarking is not a process that I think is the appropriate way to spend public money. But I, I’m a little confused about some of the righteous indignation coming from the Republican side of the aisle about this bill. Um, the omnibus twenty-ten that they have sitting out there, they’re wanting the American people to think that this document came from Democrats. They want the American people to think that omnibus twenty-ten, that all those pages sitting there were done by Democrats. They weren’t done by Democrats. Those pages were done by Democrats and Republicans. Every bit of that document was drafted by Republicans and Democrats right down to the earmarks.

And for the minority leader [Senator Mitch McConnell (r)] to stand here and act as if this document is something that is the fault of the Democratic Party when he well knows that he has been involved, I have been involved in terms of trying to get the number down, and I’m glad we succeeded in getting the number down as been referenced to the Sessions McCaskill number, but this was a bipartisan effort to get the number down.

And the irony is, guess who has earmarks in there? The minority leader who just voted on a moratorium for earmarks ten minutes ago. Did he pull his earmarks out? No.

Did any of the Republicans who voted for a moratorium on earmarks, did they pull their earmarks out before this bill came to the floor? We could have eliminated a few pages.

So, you know, I just don’t think the righteous indignation works. This was a bipartisan effort drafted by Republicans and Democrats. It came to the floor after months of work by Democrats and Republicans. And it was presented to this body in a bipartisan way to vote on. I wasn’t gonna vote on it. I’m against it. But I just, so I think that I have a slight bit of credibility to call these guys on this notion that this is something that sprung from nowhere out of some back room on the Democratic side of the aisle.

This sprung from a bipartisan effort of the Appropriations Committee and every member on that side of the aisle knows it. They know it. And they know the earmarks in there, there are almost seven hundred million dollars of earmarks in there from people who voted on  a moratorium on earmarks. That’s like being half pregnant.

They should have said before this bill ever came to the floor, and they were asked, would you like your earmarks pulled out? No, no, they were perfectly willing to vote no and take those earmarks home.

So, on one hand, I would have voted no had we had the vote, and I said that from day one. I voted no on the omnibus last year. I voted no on another omnibus because I don’t think it’s the right way to appropriate.

But this is an equal opportunity sin. The problems with this process don’t lie on one side of the aisle, they lie on both sides of the aisle. And the notion that the Republicans are trying to say this is just about the Democrats is the kind of hypocrisy that gives us the lowest ratings we have in terms of confidence of the American people.

We need to own up here. This is not about the Democrats. This is about both sides of the aisle and a flawed appropriations process that couldn’t get to the floor because of a lot of obstructionism. And when it finally did get to the floor it came in one package. But it is not fair for the Republicans to act like that all those ages came from the Democratic side of the aisle. They certainly did not…

Gee, it would have been nice if Senator McCaskill (D) had expended the same energy and vote opposing the windfall tax break for millionaires and billionaires.  

Todd Akin is a charter member, as we have noted, of the House Tea Party caucus, which was founded, according to its leader, Michele Bachmann (R-MN), to give voice to those who are “sick of government over-spending.” Consequently, caucus members might be expected to observe the voluntary earmarks ban instated  by House GOP members. However, according to the National Journal, during the 111th congress, caucus member Akin requested nine earmarks worth over 14 million dollars. Other Tea Party caucus members requested even more – all told, caucus members’requests totaled over $1 billion dollars – but Akin’s tally certainly isn’t chicken-feed all by itself – especially for a legislator who piously (emphasis on pious) intones (and intones) about government spending.

Akin’s spending hypocrisy is hardly news though – what’s more interesting is the gap between general GOP spending rhetoric and behavior. ThinkProgress observes that in spite of the use of the term “earmark” as a Pavlovian trigger, few GOPers seem to worry too much abut them when they’re not directly observed, noting that  “an earmark ban was also conspicuously absent from House Republicans’ Pledge to American [sic] governing agenda.” Of course the specifically Tea Party nature of the earmarks noted above might suggest that in practical, legislative terms the Tea Party label doesn’t stand for much more than a hell-raising good time for those repressed middle-agers with anger management problems.

Previously: “…I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

Senator John McCain (r) via Twitter this evening:

@TomCoburn @MarkUdall @Clairemc & I announced today a bi-partisan amendment for a 2-year ban on all earmarks http://tinyurl.com/2ugj9op     less than 10 seconds ago  via web  

The press release:

SENATORS McCAIN, COBURN, UDALL AND MCCASKILL CALL FOR EARMARK MORATORIUM FOR FULL SENATE

Senators Plan to Offer Amendment at Earliest Opportunity

November 16, 2010

Washington, D.C. ­- U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), Mark Udall (D-CO) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) today announced their intention to force the U.S. Senate to hold a public vote on a binding earmark moratorium, which would go into effect immediately and last two years, at the earliest opportunity.  A vote could happen as early as tomorrow.

“The time has come for Congress to put a stop to the corrupt practice of earmarking once and for all,” said Senator John McCain.  “Every time Congress passes an earmark laden appropriations bill we are robbing future generations of their ability to attain the American dream.  This is simply immoral.  And it is, of course, unconscionable to waste money in these difficult times on pork barrel projects that have little purpose other than to improve the re-election prospects of their authors.”

“The greatest national security threat facing our nation today is our national debt and a Congress that refuses to acknowledge the depth of our challenges.  Earmarks are not only wasteful but are terrible distraction for both parties.  The sooner we get rid of earmarks the sooner we can go to work on the difficult task of getting our budget under control,” Dr. Coburn said.

“Out-of-control spending has caused us to rack up huge deficits, which now threaten our future economic prosperity and our national security.  The American people want us to show them that we’re serious about taking action to solve this problem.  The only way we can reform the status quo is if everyone takes responsibility for the problem.  Not only will I not request earmarks, I’m going to work to end the process so that Congress can focus on what Americans want most – a secure economic future,” said Udall.

“I’ve been working to change the earmark culture in Washington since the day I was sworn in, but frankly it’s been a lonely fight for Senators like Dr. Coburn, Senator McCain and me until very recently,” McCaskill said.  “It’s encouraging to see so many new faces join this effort over the last few days and I am excited to work with them in finally ending the flawed practice of earmarks. The truth is that earmarks are simply not a good way to spend tax dollars – I believe that funding should always be based on merit, not politics.”

The bi-partisan moratorium, which would apply to all bills in fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013, would create rule to allow members to raise points of order against any bill that includes an earmark.  The definition of earmarks under the moratorium is:

“A provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.”

###

Before anyone gets too excited about his seriousness read what he posted via Twitter a day earlier:

Happy birthday @Sn00ki     about 24 hours ago  via Twitter for iPhone  

Who the hell is Sn00ki? You’ve got to be kidding me.

Res Ipsa Loquitur – go, read the comments.

Win!:

Does this mean Snooki will be on Meet The Press?