UPDATED: Earmarks are news in Congress today
This is kind of an update on yesterday's post about an investigation into an earmark by Rep. Don Young (R-AK). The earmark in question, it is being referred to as the "Coconut Road” earmark, was changed after it was approved by both chambers of Congress and signed by President Bush.
The Club for Growth and Citizens Against Government Waste (and here) have been following action in the Senate today on an amendment to a technical corrections bill by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).
Andy Roth at the CFG writes that Coburn's amendment would initiate an investigation into the "Coconut Road" earmark and likely the $40,000 in campaign contributions that Young, who represents Alaska, received from a developer pushing the project, which is in Florida.
The New York Times has a good article about the project:
The Republican congressman [Connie Mack] whose district does include Coconut Road says he did not seek the money. County authorities have twice voted not to use it, until Mr. Young and the district congressman wrote letters warning that a refusal could jeopardize future federal money for the county.Amazing.
It seems open and shut, right? Wrong. House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with help from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) are threatening to kill the bill, which is, as CAGW points out, is "crammed with new earmarks and additional money for previous earmarks!!" Boxer is reported to admit that, "I think it’s very possible people ought to go to jail here.”
Like I said yesterday and wrote in my column a few weeks ago, the process of earmarking is shrouded in secrecy and because of that it welcomes corruption. If this were investigated, it could bring what goes on behind the scenes to the forefront and it would show that Democrats have done absolutely nothing to clean up Washington.
[UPDATE] Coburn's amendment to create a bicameral special committee to investigate to investigate the "Coconut Road" earmark failed by a vote of 49 to 43, it needed 60 votes to pass.
Boxer's amendment to send the matter to the Justice Department passed 63 to 29.
You can read more here.
Comments
If Georgia had any senate representation with courage or any representation in the house, we would see a bill introduced to STOP this corruption of earmarks. Let them introduce a Stop Earmark inclusion in any bill,extend their terms by two weeks and during that time the only business that could be conducted would be each state having 1 hour to present their "PORK" order to the floor. That would mean each senator would have approximately 30 minutes to convince their colleagues of the need to pay their campaign contribution debts and why they need to "PORK" the taxpayer in order to do that.
Of course these sessions would have to be on CSPAN. I mean how long would it take to say "I need 250 million to build a bridge to nowhere" or "I need to give this drive in movie restoration contract to ABC contractors because they gave me 20 thousand during my re-election campaign". I mean how long does it take to butcher a pig? Of course you would have to have a plant in both parties that would oppose the others "PORK" request so they would all vote against each others request. That way nobody gets "PORKED" especially the taxpayer and the added plus is billions that could actually be used for something that would benefit ALL the taxpayers,not just the few who bought the election.
The key to this being workable would be having the each senator or representative required to release a statement as to why they voted for or against the Stop Earmarks Fraud bill.
But then again this would take a senator of representative with courage and we in Georgia are in short supply of that commodity.
Just a thought.
PS
I do thank the members of the Georgia house that said "NO" to pork but it is not enough to say "not for me but my friend has to decide for himself" There are times when you have to make your team mates play with honor even if it means they balk at it. Earmarks are not illegal,well not always, but they are certainly an area that is without honor or else they would be debated in the open not inserted after the fact with the hopes no one notices.
Posted by: Don | April 18, 2008 10:18 AM