Oink!

---

TOP 10 STATES, PER CAPITA EARMARKS

State Per capita Hawaii $318 North Dakota $234 West Virginia $174 Vermont $161 Mississippi $142 Alaska $140 Montana $125 South Dakota $112 Rhode Island $79 Nevada $79

Source: Taxpayers for Common Sense FY 2010

The “road to nowhere” – that Alaska pork-barrel project that became the poster-boy for federal waste in support to favor of often-questionable local projects – is no longer in the number one porker state; Hawaii now tops that list. Funny how the last two states to join the union are among the high absorbers of federal pork. Bottom line, each of the above states takes in a lot more federal spending than they pay back in federal taxes.

But in the current deficit purge foisted on an unwitting group of experienced and neophyte Congressmen and women alike, pork appears to be a sacrificial lamb whose time has come. Who stands who lose the most? Oddly, not the number one state on the above list: “[T]he state that could lose the most from an earmark ban is Mississippi. The state currently pulls in 11 times as much in earmarked funds as it sends back to Washington in taxes, according to an analysis from Brandon Arnold, director of government relations at the Cato Institute, a libertarian group.” Stateline.org (December 10^th). Congress will undoubtedly find other ways to categorize some of this spending, and getting local projects is always a part of reelecting an incumbent, so expect some disguised horse-trading in the coming months.

But there will be cuts: “The discussion over earmarks in Washington is part of a bigger debate that will consume the incoming Congress: how to create jobs and bolster the fragile recovery while also shrinking the federal deficit. The decisions will have huge consequences for states. The federal budget provides about 30 percent of state revenue, making it the largest single source of funds for many states and a prime target for trimming from a penny-pinching Congress. ‘These states will still get federal funds’ if a ban goes through, says Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, ‘but no doubt about it, they will get dinged.. Ellis’s organization is one of three watchdog groups that recently launched an online database of congressional earmark requests submitted for 2011. The requests total $130 billion.’” Stateline.org.

On the other end of the spectrum – the states who contribute more than they get back in federal taxes – the cutting of pork might actually reduce their contributions to their fellow porker-states via federal taxes. The biggest contributors without off-set federal value include (in order for the top 15 contributors with the least proportionate return – according to the Cato Institute): New York, Illinois, Nebraska, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, Arizona, Ohio, Georgia, Minnesota, Texas, California, Indiana, Massachusetts, Wisconsin.

The debate rages as to whether all of this “cut the pork” rhetoric means anything, whether it is tokenism or a symbolic drop in the bucket or whether this is a signal for true fiscal reform. The December 12^th Washington Post puts the debate in perspective: “Critics as varied as tea party supporters and the Obama administration say earmarks represent government waste and create opportunities for corruption… But supporters, particularly in Congress, say a ban on earmarks would rob lawmakers of their authority to set the spending and taxing policies of the nation, relinquishing it to the executive branch. ‘Getting rid of earmarks does not save taxpayers any money, reduces transparency and gives more power to the Obama administration,’ says Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and earmark advocate.

“Both sides agree that earmarks account for only about 1 percent of federal spending and that ending them won't do much to erase the federal deficit. But even some of the most ardent earmark supporters now grudgingly admit that the practice has become an emblem of inefficiency, and are supporting a ban. Among them is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).” Funny how you don’t seem to be getting the same kind of battling-concern on issues where we really could have hundreds of billions of dollars… like funding a war in Afghanistan that we seemed destined to lose and that our own top serving general (our commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus) tells us is anything but certain. We are even keeping our tax rates intact even for those who don’t really need tax relief. Congress just wants it to look like they are going something to reduce the deficit… even if it has marginal value towards this goal.

OK, what did the lame duck Congress do, knowing that the Dems are about to lose control of the House and not enough of a majority in the Senate to stop a filibuster? Act responsibly and deny those pesky personal porky projects? Noooo! "Senate Democrats released a massive spending bill [on December 14^th] that contains money for thousands of lawmakers' pet projects, setting up a fierce debate over so-called earmarks in the waning days of the lame-duck congressional session… The House took a different approach this month in passing an alternative spending bill, known as a 'continuing resolution,' that would keep funding level through September and contains no congressional earmarks… Critics of earmarks said the bill released [December 14^th] represents a last hurrah for lawmakers steering money to their pet projects before the arrival in January of dozens of tea party-backed Republicans intent on ending the practice." Washington Post (December 14^th). Seems that they buried these gems in an overall budget package, but I have this feeling… well, don't hold your breath.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I am seeing a real “forest for the trees” issue here!