By Marcia Moore
The Daily Item
October 05, 2008 08:57 am
—
U.S. Rep. Chris Carney is proud of the $23 million in pork-barrel funds he’s delivered to the 10th Congressional District in two years, but Chris Hackett, his Republican opponent in November’s general election, says it’s a paltry sum gained from a corrupt system.
There’s a wide divide between the candidates on pork spending, the controversial system that allows Congress to secure funding for private companies, nonprofit agencies, universities, or state and local governments — or a specific project — by inserting them into spending bills without competitive bidding or much oversight.
Steering earmarks to the 10th District is the most important aspect of his job, said Carney, of Dimock.
“These projects help people, help communities and create jobs,” he said, citing the nearly $400,000 he obtained for programs at the Middlecreek Area Community Center in Beaver Springs and $100,000 for a Court Appointed Special Advocate program benefiting abused and neglected children in Williamsport.
Hackett, of Shavertown, says what Carney has secured in earmarks amounts to a very small percentage of available federal dollars and that the system has led to several members of Congress — such as former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, of California — being jailed or investigated for corruption. Cunningham is imprisoned for accepting $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors in exchange for earmarks.
“That’s an abuse of power and problematic for government. It’s a culture of corruption,” said Hackett, who proposes pork-barrel spending be replaced with a competitive grant process.
According to Hackett, liberal leaders in Congress use pork to control votes from other Democrats by insinuating, “If you don’t vote with us, you won’t get any money for your district.”
Worthy projects will succeed in the grant process, Hackett said, adding that he’ll join the charge for ending earmarks along with Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain — who in 20 years has never asked for an earmark.
But who will bring home the bacon?
“My opponent seems to want to trust this money to some bureaucrats, who don’t know where Beavertown or Shamokin is and don’t know how the money would be spent,” Carney said.
The rules have been tightened to limit abuses and the pork-barrel system has become more transparent, Carney said, because now all earmark sponsors must be disclosed and members of Congress have to sign affidavits affirming neither they nor their spouse will benefit from an earmark.
“The idea that earmarks are sucked in during the dead of night is not true,” he said.
Each earmark winds its way through a series of reviews in the appropriations committee and can be vetted individually by members of Congress.
“It’s not as though these things are passed without scrutiny,” Carney said. “This truly is a function of a representative. It’s what we should be doing.”
According to Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania ranks 35th among the states for per-capita pork spending, with a total of $332 million, or $26.75 per person, in earmarks obtained for the state in the last two years.
Alaska ranked No. 1, with $380 million, or $555.54 per person.
In 2007, his first year in office, Carney secured the most money among freshman members by sponsoring 21 projects totaling $18.2 million.
All 49 of the new Democratic lawmakers in 2007 sponsored or co-sponsored at least one earmark for a combined $351 million. Freshman Republicans got approval for projects worth $65 million.
“We call it bribing people with their own money,” said Thomas Schatz, president of the counsel for CAGW.
The good news, Schatz said, is the amount of earmarks stuffed into appropriations bills in 2007 was down about 6 percent, to $27.2 billion, from $29 billion in 2006.
The bad news?
“There is no good earmark,” Schatz said.
Carney’s position that bureaucrats shouldn’t decide the needs of individual districts makes no sense, Schatz said, since they’re involved in all other aspects of government.
Under that argument, Schatz said, “We could save a lot of money and eliminate bureaucracy. Let the Congress handle everything.”
Much has been made by Hackett of Carney’s support for spending $50,000 to create a mule museum in California and $188,000 for the Lobster Institute in Maine, both Republican-backed projects that Hackett deems particularly wasteful.
Carney defended the projects and said all members have a chance to question one another’s financial requests.
“We rely on the good sense of our colleagues who sometimes are asked to make a case” for funding, he said, adding that projects like the museum create jobs.
In light of the country’s troubled economy, Hackett said the need to put an end to earmarks in favor of more discretionary spending is even greater.
“We have finite resources in this country and we can’t fund everything,” he said. “The reality is we need to cut spending.”
Besides, Hackett added, with $450 billion available in federal funds, Carney hasn’t been able to bring home much bacon to the 10th District.
Responded Carney, with a laugh: “So with his plan we wouldn’t even get that money.”
n E-mail comments to mmoore@dailyitem.com
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.