According to Bob Novak, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is preparing a series of amendments that would take the massive earmarks currently attached to the appropriations bill and redirect those funds towards infrastructure repair to our federal highway and bridge systems.

Tom Coburn, who in three years as a U.S. senator often has tried to force colleagues into politically difficult decisions, plans to offer this choice when the Senate reconvenes following the August break: Do you want Pork or Infrastructure? Sen. Coburn is drafting amendments to kill earmarks to the Transportation appropriations bill, with the funds transferred to repairing rotting structures. That asks senators whether, in the wake of the I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota, they insist on keeping pork for their districts.

Everyone involved in the corrupt earmark process is going to freak out about this proposal, primarily because it makes sense. Earmarks were once few and far between, usually used for projects that a member of congress was unable to get into that year's appropriations bill. Now they are used to secretly attach spending items to benefit the sponsoring congressional member's home district - items often unrelated to the superior bill (i.e. earmarks unrelated to defense attached to the defense bill). It's now a way for politicians to use taxpayers' money to fund their re-election campaigns.

Redirecting all earmarks to infrastructure repair, even if only for a year, makes sense especially in light of the recent bridge collapse in Minnesota. But that will deprive politicians of funds that they consider to be "their own" to spend. For that reason, Coburn's amendments will probably be killed by the Republicans, long before they could used to put the spotlight on the Democrats and their failure to reform the earmark process. I fear it will be yet another lost opportunity for the GOP.

The Republicans could do worse than make Rep. Jack Murtha the poster boy of what they're trying to defeat in 2008. Over the past few days, Bob Novak has used his sources on Capitol Hill to give us a look at who House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls on when things get a bit touchy with the ethics and earmarks subject on the House floor -- good old Jack Murtha. He's apparently now referred to openly by his nickname: "King Corruption":

Republicans returning to the House floor on Friday morning Aug. 3 after their walkout the night before were surprised to find as presiding officer the Democrat they call "King Corruption": Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, master of earmarks and backroom deals.

...Murtha's performance as non-partisan presiding officer ran true to form. On a voice vote, Murtha ruled for Democrats when obviously more Republicans were on the House floor. He subsequently ordered a roll call vote, though members rising in support clearly fell short of the 44 required. After that ruling was challenged, Murtha declared: "The chair's decision is not subject to question."

Nice guy. And one ripe for defeat. Now we fast forward to this morning's Novak column in the Washington Post, House of Corruption?, for an update on the fight against secret earmarks attached to unrelated appropriations bills in the House. Incidentally, this is an embarrassment for both parties, not just Democrats.

I was under the impression that we already had a gas tax to pay for highways, roads, and bridges and stuff. But apparently some folks (Democrats) don't think it's high enough. From the Star-Tribune:

President Bush said Thursday that he would be opposed to any steps by Congress to increasing the gasoline tax to raise revenues for national bridge repairs in the wake of Minneapolis' bridge collapse.

"Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities," Bush said, accusing lawmakers of focusing on their own parochial concerns above such national concerns as bridge conditions.

Right on! It's been rare enough to hear something from President Bush that makes me say that, but this is one of those times. Currently the system is that congress takes money from the highway trust friend and allocates it according to their priorities set in Washington, D.C. Then any money left over can be allocated by the state governments. That's exactly backwards.

The state departments of transportation can allocate money themselves, thank you very much. And they might be more interested in making sure an existing bridge is safe rather than building new bridges to nowhere.

And then there's the situation where Ohio's gas money goes to Montana because Montana has a congress critters with better committee assignments. Bad idea all around. Bush calls Congress on it, but does he have the guts to follow through on it? History says no.

President Bush held a news conference today that, although it was supposed to focus on the economy, had a few other interesting tidbits as well. One of the first questions asked was about a statement made a few days ago by Rep. Don Young (R- Alaska).

There are 500 bridges around the country similar to the Minneapolis span, and "these are potential deathtraps," says Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, former chairman of the House Transportation Committee. "We have to, as a Congress, grasp this problem. And yes, I would even suggest, fund this problem with a tax," he says. "May the sky not fall on me."

President Bush was more gracious than I would have been in the same situation. While not dismissing a possible gas tax hike out of hand (contrary to the title of the CNN article on the presser, Bush dismisses gas tax hike for bridge repairs), he did say (correctly) that Congress needs to look at itself first before considering any other solutions to the infrastructure problems.

Yesterday, John Fund had an interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Northern Exposure - The GOP's Alaska delegation could become the new poster boys for corruption, that should serve as a wake-up call to gutless and clueless Republicans in Congress.

Fund points out a few inconvenient truths about the recently passed and signed Ethics "Reform" Bill. In January, the Senate unanimously adopted "sunshine" provisions for all bills, a device intended to publicly show the public the who, what, and where's of earmark spending. It was supposed to be codified in the reform bill. It wasn't. In addition, according to Fund:

The bill the rest voted for had been gutted: Disclosing an earmark is now voluntary (not mandatory), protecting an earmark requires only 41 votes (instead of 67), and the power to determine whether a spending provision inserted by a senator is officially considered an earmark will now be up to . . . Mr. Reid.

Last winter, the Democrats quickly adopted the mantra that the election of 2006 was all about getting out of Iraq. While that was probably true for the far left, the rest of those concerned about Iraq were more concerned about changing the failed tactics in Iraq towards ones that would give us a chance for victory. Even then, if you take both coalitions together (the stop fighting left and the start fighting middle and right), Iraq concerns were a distant second to the main concern of voters in 2006 -- corruption, specifically Republican corruption.

The Corner is reporting that a bill will be voted on in the House tomorrow. This bill will provide full federal funding for a replacement bridge up to $250 million dollars.

So anyone want to guess the chances of this bill not happening? The bill was submitted by Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-Minnesota, Duh). Timing is everything if he gets it through. I suggest he take the money from Ted Stevens' Bridge-to-nowhere which would have cost twice as much and yet served less people than were actually injured or killed in the Minneapolis collapse.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (a Republican) has ordered all Minnesota bridges of the same design to be immediately inspected, which seems reasonable. And federal officials asked other states to do the same.

CQPolitics.com reported yesterday that Alaska's Republican Senator Ted Stevens placed yet another expensive earmark into a Senate spending bill. This one, worth $3.5 million, benefits one company. And, of course, that company has ties to Stevens:

Sen. Ted Stevens, who as a top appropriator has mastered the art of the congressional earmark, tucked $3.5 million into a Senate spending bill this year to help finance an airport to serve a remote Alaskan island. The airstrip would connect the roughly 100 permanent residents of Akutan to the outside world. The biggest beneficiary, though, would be Seattle-based Trident Seafoods Corp., which operates one of the world's largest seafood processing plants on the volcanic island in the Aleutians.

Trident and Stevens are no strangers. For years, company founder and Chief Executive Charles Bundrant has been a generous contributor to the Alaska Republican's campaigns. And in December, according to the Seattle Times, a federal grand jury investigating political corruption in Alaska ordered Trident and other seafood companies to produce documents detailing financial ties to the senator's son, former Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board Chairman Ben Stevens.

Senator Stevens apparently lacks the capacity for shame. Every time I start feeling good about the Republicans' chances in 2008, something stupid like this pops up. More often than not, it involves someone from Alaska. What is the problem up there -- lack of sunshine or something in the water? Inbreeding, perhaps?

Remember when the current Congress took office amid the hype of "transparency" and "ethics"? Well, it took them less than one whole summer to throw that by the wayside.

It started with the esteemed Rep. David Obey and his little sleight of hand maneuvers and grew to full on hostility of anyone who would question the earmarks of a great man like Rep. Murtha. The Democratic Congress began their retreat from reform almost immediately, yet the media didn't care and the representatives and senators knew it.

The incoming Congress pushed a bill for transparency that got unanimous support and gave them a shot in the arm, albeit a short-lived one. N.Z. Bear shows what was voted on and what's in the new version. It ain't pretty:

Based on what we're hearing from those who would know, key changes include:

• The old version (passed by the Senate) required conference / committee reports to list all earmarks and required the chairman of the relevant committee to distribute the earmark list. But the new version of the bill allows the Majority Leader (as opposed to the Senate parliamentarian, a more objective judge) to determine whether or not a conference report complies with the disclosure requirements.
• The new version removes the requirement for earmark lists posted online to be in searchable format.
• The new version removes the provision that prevented any bill from being considered at all prior to the disclosure of earmarks; now the text only prohibits a formal motion to proceed, which leaves open a procedural loophole that would allow bills to slip through without disclosure.
• The old version prohibited earmarks which benefit a Member, their staff, or their family/their staff's family. The new version waters that down and only prohibits earmarks that would "only" affect those parties --- which means so long as you can make a case that your shiny new project affects at least one person other than you positively, you're all set.

Here's a handy chart that lays it out in technicolor.

Harry Reid surely has changed the way Congress does business, hasn't he? It is now more difficult to track earmarks than it was in January.

End note: This is a truly bi-partisan effort, perhaps we won't have the "Pork King" Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to kick around after too long. Good riddance senator and take all of the other corrupt bastards with you.

Update (7/31/07 1541): The bill passed and shocka! Murtha voted against it. No silly, not because he's had a sudden outbreak of ethics, he knows the bill will shed a sliver of light on his shady ways. Old John thought he perfected his schtick since his unindicted co-conspirator ABSCAM days.

One of the things that I'm unsure of is if Republicans have done enough to purge themselves of idiots before the 2008 elections. This story from The Politico tells me that they have not:

Rep. Don Young attacked his fellow Republicans on the House floor Wednesday, as he defended education funds allocated to his home-state of Alaska.

"You want my money, my money," Young stridently declared before warning conservatives that, "Those who bite me will be bitten back."

Young took extreme exception to an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) to strike money in a spending bill for native Alaskan and Hawaiian educational programs.

Conservatives have stoked the ire of their fellow Republicans for years by challenging federal spending, both broadly and on specific projects. But it's rare that their GOP colleagues express that displeasure openly on the floor.

You want the money, Representative Young, then put propose the spending in an Education bill using the normal process. Don't do it through earmarks. Those should be reserved for emergencies. And as to your whine that "it's my money" - no, it isn't. It's the taxpayers money. Furthermore, that's probably not a good thing to publicly cry out when you've been forced to pay over $250,000 so far in legal fees in a federal corruption investigation in Alaska. Young, and members of Congress like him, just don't get it.

No one argues that many of the spending measures that get approved via earmarking aren't worthy. It's that without information and debate on the spending, no one really knows has enough facts about the earmark to make an educated decision. An earmark could be a very important repair project that wasn't foreseen when the highway bill was written and passed, or it could just be a payoff to a political crony. However, one would hope that the chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee that is ultimately responsible for earmark project would have more information on it than, say, the average representative.

Not so, apparently, especially when it comes to a $1 million earmark for Jack Murtha. From The Crypt blog at The Politico:

Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the fiscal crusader who's never met an earmark he likes, questioned Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana on the House floor Tuesday about whether the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure actually exists - since, hey, it's getting like a million bucks or something.

Visclosky, who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, had to admit that, well, he didn't have a clue. After a lengthy back-and-forth, Flake, complaining that his staff couldn't find a website for the center, asked Visclosky, "Does the center currently exist?"

"At this time, I do not know," the Indiana Democrat replied. "But if it does not exist, the monies could not go to it."

Brilliant. Oh, and Flake's bid to strike the earmark for the Center that may or may not exist lost 326-98. Hey, what's a million dollars?

The Examiner has an article up today that should outrage anyone who feels that the pork and earmark process is out of control in Congress. It should be especially alarming to those who believed the Democrats' 2006 election promise to do away with earmarks:

Congress appears headed to approve a record number of earmarks in 2007, despite the fact that last November angry voters registered their disgust with the practice by electing Democrats who pledged a new era of transparency in government spending. A quick glance at The Examiner Newspapers/Porkbusters.org Earmark Reform Index for the U.S. Senate helps explain why. Two-thirds of the senators are adamantly opposed to reforming their appropriations perks, no matter what the public says.

The index which is linked to in the story (caution- MS Excel file) is quite interesting. It lists 12 earmark reform votes in the Senate during the past few years when earmarks became a major election issue: seven from 2007; two from 2006; and three from 2005. According to The Examiner, each vote for earmark reform received 8.3 points while each vote against received 0 points.

The results make clear that Senate opposition to earmark reform crosses party lines and includes a clear majority of 72 members who scored less than 50 in the index. Most of the 72 scored lower than 40, meaning they voted for earmark reform three or fewer times out of 12 selected chances.

Democrats scored an average of 14.3. That's astounding. Republicans did better at an average of 43.8, but that's still abominable. Although it does put the lie to the Democrats' claim that they are the party of reform.

The esteemed representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul writes this on his Web site:

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don't cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future - and yours.

Hmmm. If that's the case, why is Rep. Paul asking for megabucks in earmarks for his district in Texas?

Read these requests (file in PDF) and note how vague they are and the lack of concrete numbers asked for. There are over a hundred requests for funding of various projects including "marketing wild American shrimp" to "construction" and "engineering services." The requests must be in the high millions or billions of dollars.

Paul seems to have adopted the "do as I say, not as I do" approach to governance so popular with the left. Perhaps Rep. Paul can forgo all earmarks to set a good example for the rest of Congress. He can be the anti-pork leader in the bloated legislature. Come on Rep. Paul, I challenge you to drop every single request for earmark funding and help us lower the debt. That seems to be your goal, but alas, I foresee you continuing your high-spending ways.

Hat tip: Ace, who is not nearly as nice as I've been.

He was the first candidate (and still one of the only ones) to release his tax returns for public scrutiny. Now, Barack Obama has taken another step toward the ideal of a fully transparent government. Setting a standard one hopes that others will follow, or implement should they become president, Obama has disclosed every single earmark that he will request in 2008. Read the entire list here.

While some, like John McCain, will argue that earmarks themselves are the evil that need to be abolished, it may be worth considering the specific nature of Obama's add-on requests, most of which have to do with improving Illinois infrastructure-- adding overpasses, traffic lanes, replacing aging water towers, etc. Consider, if you will, the pace at which our government would crawl if the United States Senate had to vote on separate legislation each time a member needed a new stop sign for the districts he or she represents. Full disclosure, it seems to me, is a rational step toward accountability. It shines a light on those who stuff bills with the most outrageous pork without crippling ethical legislators from delivering much needed services to their constituents.

Moreover, Obama's list of earmarks shows where his legislative priorities are. It's refreshing, and should be made law.

There's an article in The Hill this week that tells us just how successful Hillary Clinton has been in taking advantage of the earmark loophole, which allows members of Congress to insert pet spending projects into bills without having to go through the formal appropriations process.

Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

The bill contains about $5.4 billion in earmarks, or projects not requested by the Pentagon. With their slim majority, the Democrats on the panel claimed two-thirds of that sum. Clinton is among their more junior members.

Hillary has been quite successful at playing the earmarks game, the article goes on to inform us:

According to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, Clinton has secured 360 earmarks worth a combined $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006 in all spending and authorization bills.

As far as this year's Defense Authorization Bill goes, fellow Democratic presidential primary candidate Barack Obama only has one earmark, and Republican primary candidate John McCain has none.

What I found surprising is that many of the earmarks that this article mentions sound like smart things that I would support. So why not just allow them to go through the normal budget process, be debated in public, and voted on? Congressional members should have the courage of their convictions and be able to publicly argue the merits of these projects. If a project is good for the country as a whole, or fills a desperate need, why the secrecy of an earmark?

Last year, after seeing how the uproar over earmarks was hurting them both in public and with their conservative base, the Republican-led House passed a reform bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, required full public disclosure.

Last year's package required public disclosure of earmarks and their sponsors in appropriations, tax and authorizing bills.

When the Democrats took over they promised to be even tougher on earmarks. But they chose not to. The Democrats publicly stated that information on earmarks in appropriations bills would not be divulged until the conference committee reconciling the Senate and House versions of spending bills met -- meaning after the bills had been passed. In effect, the earmarks would be secret until after it was too late for the public to weigh in. Any changes to earmarks after initial passage would be under the sole discretion of House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis.