Great Report on Earmarks
The Seattle Times has done a ton of work on earmarks, and has a report here. Nothing here will be much of a surprise for earmark critics. This was probably my favorite bit:
Last year, Congress promised to shed light on the secretive process. But the lists of earmarks are still buried in obscure documents that are difficult to find and search. Until Congress put them online a couple of weeks ago, the House disclosure letters, linking lawmakers to companies, were thick volumes of paper kept in a cabinet in the offices of the House Appropriations Committee.
When a reporter for the Congressional Quarterly pointed out how difficult it remains to pull all the information together, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the committee that drafts the defense bill, had a quick answer: "Tough shit."
Murtha, for those who don't know, consistently leads the earmarking numbers, and came in #1 among Congressmen in reaping campaign donations from earmark recipients, bringing in over $1.6 million. They have a database here where you can look up your Congressman (mine, John Shadegg, was one of the few with zero). My sense is that this database is only from the military appropriation and that there are many more earmarks hidden out there in other bills, but it is a good start. (hat tip Hit and Run)
The new, but not surprising, information for me was how Congress easily sidesteps the new disclosure rules.
After months of investigating the $459 billion 2008 defense bill, The Times found:
• The hidden $3.5 billion included 155 earmarks, among them the most costly in the bill. Congress disclosed 2,043 earmarks worth $5 billion.
• The House broke the new rules at least 110 times by failing to disclose who was getting earmarks, making it difficult for the public to judge whether the money is being spent wisely.
• In at least 175 cases, senators did not list themselves in Senate records as earmark sponsors, appearing more fiscally responsible. But they told a different story to constituents back home in news releases, claiming credit for the earmarks and any new jobs.
The Times includes several irritating but entertaining stories of rent-seeking. Take Cyberlux, for example. What do you do when your company has sunk $50 million into a new product, has a $18 million a year burn rate, and only has $300,000 is revenues for the first six months of the year? Why, you call your Congressman and generate revenues via earmarks, with a quick thank you in the form of company-sponsored fundraising for said representative.
And this certainly is a feel-good story for those rooting for the government to re-engineer the American auto industry:
Latrobe Specialty Steel of Latrobe, 40 miles east of Pittsburgh, makes specialty steel for aircraft parts.
In 2006, its parent company, Timken, spent $2.9 million lobbying Congress on various issues and persuaded lawmakers to ban the Defense Department from buying any products using foreign-made specialty steel. As the sole U.S. producer of certain kinds of specialty steel, Latrobe saw its orders climb. Timken then sold Latrobe to a group of investors in a $250 million deal.
But the buy-American restrictions for specialty steel caused serious problems for the Air Force, creating a 17-month lag in getting spare parts for aircraft used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In May 2007, Latrobe said it needed to expand but complained of high electric bills and publicly threatened to build a new plant in Virginia or West Virginia instead. Pennsylvania offered grants and tax credits to the company worth $1.2 million.
In Congress, lawmakers were quietly lining up a much sweeter package.
In the defense bill passed in December, someone had inserted language that ultimately directed $18.4 million for "domestic expansion of essential vacuum induction melting furnace capacity and vacuum arc remelting furnace capacity."
"Latrobe Specialty Steel is the only domestic producer of that steel," Army Lt. Gen. William Mortensen said at a hearing.
A month after the bill passed, Latrobe began a $62 million expansion in its home state.
No one in Congress has admitted sponsoring the Latrobe earmark.
One congressman's fingerprints, however, weren't so easy to conceal. Latrobe sits in the congressional district of Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat who chairs the subcommittee that drafts the defense bill and wields the most power over defense earmarks.
Latrobe's officials have given $5,000 to Murtha's re-election fund in the past two years.
Also, Murtha had talked about giving taxpayer dollars to Latrobe. "We're trying to get together to see how we can work out an increased capacity for that particular company," Murtha said at a subcommittee hearing in April 2007. "I've talked to that producer. And what I'd like to see is them put some money in, us put some money in, and reduce the time it takes to get those spare parts out."...
The company would not comment on any discussions it had with Murtha. A spokeswoman defended getting the grant, saying it had been competitively bid. Even so, she acknowledged that Latrobe is the sole U.S. producer of certain specialty steels, a requirement for getting the money.
Posted on November 18, 2008 at 08:59 AM | Permalink
A $5,000 "investment" that returns $18.4 million?! I'd like to get in on that kind of action!
Posted by: skh.pcola | Nov 18, 2008 12:54:41 PM
I always wanted to connect opensecrets.org and cagw.org, and see who made the most on their "investment."
Posted by: Ian Random | Nov 18, 2008 4:35:45 PM
Does anyone believe that Murtha only received ten grand for his earmarking? That's all that may show up as campaign contributions, but I'm sure that at least ten times that amount got funneled to the Senator in some other way.
Posted by: Dr. T | Nov 18, 2008 5:33:49 PM
You live less than 3 miles from me, you get Shadegg, and I get Mitchell....
Posted by: Chris Byrne | Nov 18, 2008 11:52:33 PM
How sad is it that congressmen and blatantly ignore their own rules?
So how are rules enforced, can a private citizen sue?
Posted by: Chris | Nov 19, 2008 9:44:39 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.