And you don't need to be for pork when your partner does some of the heavy lifting.
blog.sunlightfoundation.com
==
And first in pork? Alaska. I envy the governor of Alaska; has lots of money to play with. Does anybody know who the gov of Alaska is?
==
Alaska 1st, Ariz. last in pork spending
Updated 3/22/2008 6:13 AM
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's state may lead the country in per-capita pork barrel spending but she has said her administration plans to ask the state's congressional delegation for far fewer earmarks, compared to previous years.
WASHINGTON — Arizona has some powerful lawmakers in Washington, including Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.
But when it comes to pork-barrel spending, otherwise known as earmarks, the state ranks last.
That's mostly because three of the state's 10 lawmakers in Washington — McCain and House Republicans Jeff Flake and John Shadegg — refuse to ask for any federal money for local projects. Another Arizona Republican, Sen. Jon Kyl, strictly limits his earmark requests.
They all say the earmark process wastes taxpayer money and desperately needs reform. But other Arizona lawmakers counter that their colleagues' stance hurts the state.
Arizona, the second fastest growing state in the nation, will receive just $18.70 per capita in federal earmarks this fiscal year. By comparison, Alaska — with roughly a tenth of Arizona's population — is set to receive $506.34 per capita, the highest in the nation, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group which tracks earmarks.
The state of Alaska receives about three times as much as Arizona receives in actual dollars, $346 million to $119 million.
"When you have reformers and purists, you end up not getting a reasonable share of money coming out, which hurts the state," said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. "When you're holier than thou, you don't get much of the money."
Much of the work done by lawmakers in Washington centers on how to spend about $3 trillion in taxpayer money each year. For many members of Congress, securing funding for projects back home can often be the most tangible product of the complicated budget process.
But earmarks have gotten a bad name after public corruption scandals involving former high-profile lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who went to jail for accepting millions in bribes from defense contractors to steer government money their way.
They have also been mocked after the 2005 disclosure of funding for a $223 million "bridge to nowhere" that would have linked a small Alaska town to a tiny island with a population of 50.
Despite the controversy, lawmakers secured about $18.3 billion for nearly 13,000 projects last year. Only 18 lawmakers declined to seek any earmarks.
Lawmakers often work together on earmarks that can benefit multiple states or districts. But the bulk of their funding request are for projects in their home districts or states.
The earmark process for next fiscal year is just getting started, with lawmakers submitting their requests for local project funding to appropriations committees in the House and Senate.
Efforts to place a one-year moratorium on earmarks have failed in both chambers, but a growing number of House Republicans have signed a pledge to abstain from seeking them.
Rep. Trent Franks, a Republican from the Glendale, Ariz. region, helped secure about $29.2 million worth of earmarks last year but has vowed not to ask for any special project funding this year. Franks' recent pledge would mean that only half of the state's congressional delegation plan to actively seek earmarks.
"We have members of our delegation who feel their job is not to bring equitable resources back to the state," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Tuscon-area Democrat. "The fact remains we are shortchanging our taxpayers by not bringing more resources into the state."
EARMARKS: Taxpayers for Common Sense database
There's another reason Arizona gets so much less money than Alaska — political power.
Alaska is home to Sen. Ted Stevens, a senior Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, which largely controls how money is doled out in Washington. Arizona has just one appropriator in the House, Rep. Ed Pastor, where rank and file members have less clout than in the Senate.
"It's one of the illustrations of what's wrong with the system," said Ryan Alexander, president of the taxpayer group. "Earmark dollars are not distributed based on need or merit or anything else as far as we can tell other than by power."
Rep. John Shadegg, a Republican from the Phoenix area, agrees.
"I would argue that if all of us sought earmarks, Arizona would still get shortchanged," he said.
That doesn't mean they're shortchanged in the overall federal budget. The state receives more federal funding than state taxpayers put in, according to the Northeast-Midwest Institute, which found that Arizona got $1.19 for every dollar taxpayers spent in 2005.
Shadegg contends that earmarks corrupt the political process by often putting lawmakers in the position of asking for funding for groups that give them campaign donations. At the same time, lawmakers use earmarks to brag to constituents about what they're accomplishing in Washington, he said.
"People in my district don't want me to use their taxpayer dollars to get me re-elected," he said.
Others say that earmarks increase government spending at a time when the national debt continues to climb.
"We simply can't afford it in the country," said Flake, of Mesa. "I just can't in good conscience just play the game."
Kyl, who helped secure about $92.7 million in earmarks last year, does not think lawmakers should eliminate them altogether but argues the system should be more transparent and that funding be distributed based on the merits of projects. One of the complaints about the process is that earmarks often are inserted into spending bills without debate over merits of the funding requests.
Recent reforms in the House and Senate have forced lawmakers to disclose the earmarks they secure but don't make them identify all the ones they request. So far, only three Arizona lawmakers — Kyl and freshmen Democrats Reps. Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords — have vowed to disclose all their requests.
"I'm willing to defend what I ask for, because I ask for so little," Kyl said.
Pastor, a Phoenix-area Democrat, won't release all of his requests because he says it would violate the privacy of groups asking for funding.
But he defends all the projects he supports and notes that earmarks make up one percent of the federal budget. If it doesn't get spent on Arizona projects, the funding would be spent elsewhere, he said.
"All the money Arizona doesn't take goes to Alaska," said Pastor, who secured more earmark funding than any other member of the state's delegation: $57.7 million.
Pastor also teamed up with Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Tempe, to get nearly $700,000 for a river restoration project for the Salt River, which sometimes floods, washing out roads. The project is a big priority for the city of Mesa, which is represented by Mitchell and Flake.
Scott Butler, the city's government relations director, says city officials respect Flake's position but appreciate the help they receive from other members.
"As long as earmarks do occur," he said, "we feel our projects are just as worthy."
usatoday.com |
