That’s right, Oink Report readers.  In 2006 Republican Alaska Senator Ted Stevens managed to secure more pork from the federal government than that same federal government paid for the state 141 years ago.

Back then Alaska was purchased with a $7.2 million check to the Russians.  That’s $104 million in today’s dollars when adjusted for inflation.  In 2006, Stevens managed to secure $325 million in pork for the state.

Now some of us here at the Oink Report are from Alaska, and the state holds something of a special place in our hearts.  We’ve always felt that America got quite a bargain on that original purchase.  But even so, is it right that one year of pork should be more than three times what the state was originally purchased for?

We don’t think it is.  Americans already paid to buy Alaska once.  They don’t need to be more than buying it again every single year.

Here’s the facts about a former little company called Cornerstone Technologies, LLC:

• It was owned by the relatives of US Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski (D - PA).  60% of the company was owned by KOR Holdings, Inc. which in turn is owned by Kanjorski’s daughter and four of his nephews.  One of the nephews, Peter Kanjorski, was also the CEO of Cornerstone and owned 20% of the company personally.
• The company was funded by $9.2 million in defense earmarks secured by Rep. Kanjorski in 1999, 2001 and 2002.
• The company has now filed bankruptcy and won’t be paying back the $1.34 million it owes to creditors.
• The company won’t be returning two large milling machines worth $142,000 purchased by the US Navy for its research as they seem to have disappeared.
• The company’s research resulted in nothing of research for the Navy or any other branch of the US military.

After reading that dismal litany of ugly news, we Oink Reporters are wondering why some of these people aren’t in jail.

We’re also wondering why anyone would think it is the proper role of government to fund start-up companies.  It seems that if the government needs to contract something out it should go to an established business instead of earmarking start-up money for a new business which just happens to be conveniently owned by family members of a U.S. Congressman.

There is nothing excusable about any of this, and it illustrates exactly why our earmarking process needs to be more transparent.  And why the consequences for abusing it need to be more dire.

There are a lot of ways to steal from the taxpayers.  One way is to misappropriate money for pet projects of little interest or use to the majority of taxpayers.  Another way is to manage money with little regard for oversight or transparency so that it ends up disappearing down bureaucratic black holes.

But another way is to manipulate certain policies, like traffic laws for instance, to maximize revenue even when said manipulations have a negative impact on public safety.  Six American cities are being accused of this form of stealing because they’re manipulating yellow light times in order to maximize the number of traffic infractions at certain intersections.

Short yellow light times at intersections have been shown to increase the number of traffic violations and accidents. Conversely, increasing the yellow light duration can dramatically reduce red-light violations at an intersection.

Some local governments have ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided to install red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead.

Much as with earmark spending, this brings into question the appropriate role of government.  The power to tax does not exist so that politicians can distribute those tax proceeds to special pet projects which only benefit them and their political patrons.  The power to set traffic laws does not exist so that politicians can manipulate them to increase revenue.

Taxes are for legitimate functions of government, and traffic laws are for public safety.  Not revenue.

Apparently having watched too many late-night, fat-loss infomercials Texas Governor Rick Perry is investing $250,000 tax dollars in some sort of “miracle drug” injection that is supposed to make your blubber go away.

Texas has invested $250,000 for a possible miracle drug to fight obesity. . . .

To fight obesity, the state has investing in a company that says it’s working hard for an injection that cuts body fat quickly.

From a person trained for long, hard work, Greg Galindo, a trainer at Pure Austin Fitness said he’s cautious of any drug to take off fat.

“I’m just not in favor of that quick fix” Galindo said. “It may help with the obesity, but would it actually make the person healthier?”

The state is willing to see. It just gave $250,000 to Halsa Pharmaceuticals for its research on an injection that cuts body fat.

The money comes from an emerging technology fund approved by the Legislature in 2005.

Normally we here at the Oink Report like to spend our time cataloging wasteful federal spending since that is where most of America’s wasteful government problems stem from.  But the truth is that waste occurs at all levels of government, and we Oink Reporters can’t think of anything more wasteful than spending $250,000 taxpayer dollars on a miracle weight loss drug.

It isn’t the government’s job to cure obesity, and it isn’t the government’s job to keep us healthy.

Shameless misuse of tax dollars by politicians is something that just doesn’t surprise we cynics here at the Oink Report any more.  From earmarks for relatives to getting public buildings named after themselves, there seems to be no limit to political arrogance.

But sometimes politicians find a way to surprise even cynics like us.  The strange tale of a local politician who used tax dollars to wine and dine auditors who were investigating the misuse of tax dollars by that very politician is an example of one of those times.

Matt Chittum was covering the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority in August when he filed a FOIA request for the expense reports of Ellis Henry, the agency’s recently departed director.

Henry came to Roanoke in May 2006 to head the agency and was not long on the job when a citizen made a FOIA request to view information regarding contracts between the authority and The Issues Management Group.

A month later, Henry presented the authority board with a 400-page report raising questions about 11 IMG contracts valued at more than $1 million. The report was forwarded to HUD, an audit ensued and eventually the authority agreed to repay HUD $1.3 million that was misspent due to conflicts of interest and improper bidding of public contracts.

Ironically, one of Henry’s questionable expenses later uncovered by Chittum was the purchase of drinks during a dinner at the Metro with HUD officials who were conducting the audit.

Ironic indeed, and it illustrates one of the often-hidden costs of the earmarking process.  In order for federal officials to be sure that the earmarks are being spent on what they were intended for federal auditors must routinely investigate allegations of misuse.  Those investigations cost Americans millions on top of the money they already spent on the earmarks in the first place.

Which is why it would be better for such projects to be paid for locally.  It would mean more accountability and thus less chance for fraud.

We’re not anarchists.  We Oink Reporters know that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to spend taxpayer money.   And, frankly, we think an extended runway at an airport in Rep. Jack Murtha’s home district in Pennsylvania is probably a legitimate expenditure of federal tax dollars.  After all, air travel is part of our nation’s infrastructure and facilitating it helps us all.

But when it comes to legitimate government spending, we envision that politicians will be transparent about the spending so that it can be justified under the harsh light of public scrutiny.  Unfortunately, politicians don’t operate this way.  Rather than making the case for spending to the public - which can be a tedious process - they often just snag funding from revenues that often have little to do with the project at hand.  Which not only hides the true cost of the project from the public but often denies the public the opportunity to scrutinize the spending itself.

Such is the case with some of the funding for the  runway extension mentioned above:

  U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster pledged federal support to expand the runway at Joseph A. Hardy-Connellsville Airport to 5,000 feet.

Fayette County Commissioner Chairman Vince Zapatosky introduced Shuster, a Hollidaysburg Republican, to the Fayette Airport Authority board and other officials at a Monday press conference.

“The runway expansion will play a tremendous role in our economic future,” Zapatosky said.

Commissioner Vincent Vicites congratulated Shuster’s bipartisan effort. . . .

“The greatest asset is you folks sitting here today,” Shuster said. “You do it for the love of the community. This involves local, federal and state working together.”

Shuster pointed out that the airport is in U.S. Rep. Jack Murtha’s district. He said he will work with the Johnstown Democrat to secure funding. “We need to look at it regionally,” he said. “It’s a tremendous economic driver.”

Shuster said since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, there has been a tremendous increase in corporate air travel through regional airports.

“You’ve got a tremendous work force, a low cost of living, a quality way of life,” he said. “Funding for everything in Washington, D.C., is tight. We’re looking for a military hook.”

Several military contractors operate near the airport.

Looking for a military hook?  Pardon us, but is it really in keeping with the principles of fiscal responsibility to go looking for excuses to spend defense tax dollars?  And if Shuster is capable of finding the requisite “hook” to get this funding, what defense project will he be taking money away from?

This is the problem with the tangled web of government funding and earmarks we have now.  It’s inefficient and almost completely lacking in transparency.  Politicians borrow money from here and there to cobble together funds for pet projects, but that’s not how things should be run.

If CEO’s ran their businesses this way they’d be put in jail by the SEC.  But when politicians do it they pat themselves on the back for serving their constituents.

For professionals conferences can be a great way to become more productive.  From networking with other professionals in your field, finding new tools to use and learning new things from experts a good conference can make you a better worker.

The problem, however, is that not all conferences are good ones, not everyone needs them to be more productive and sometimes these conferences are held in exotic locations simply to attract attendees more for the trip to the location than the conference itself.

Which is why Las Vegas is such a popular conference location.

Now we certainly don’t begrudge Indian tribes sending some of their people to conferences.  Given the suffering and strife which exists on the Indian reservations it’s no doubt that we need plenty of well-trained people to get things done there.  But was it really necessary for one Indian tribe to send over 400 people to a conference in Hawaii?  At a cost of $1,000,000.00 to the taxpayers?

  The Daily Times reported in November and several times since that as many as 400 people with ties to the Navajo Nation traveled to Hawaii at a cost believed to be more than $1 million, despite participation at previous conferences in Denver and Phoenix being much less. The money used to pay for the trip included federal dollars, Navajo Nation tribal money and government-provided money in public school districts. The travel list included dozens of Navajo government officials, including many without direct ties to education. It also included many more who were school board officials, including multiple representatives who flocked to the islands to represent a single district. Meanwhile, other school districts that did not send any representatives said the money was more important for use on school and student needs.

 Surely this raised red flags with the appropriate federal agencies who promptly investigated the matter, right?  Wrong.  The Department of the Interior, which was responsible for issuing the money for the trip, investigated the matter itself and not surprisingly gave itself a complete exoneration.

Something that was promptly rubber-stamped by New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici:

U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., issued a statement Wednesday accepting the findings of a federal inquiry stating the U.S. Department of the Interior found no wrongdoing in the expenditure of federal dollars to send hundreds of Navajo representatives to an education conference in Hawaii.

The senator’s acceptance came despite an apparent lack of inquiries into agencies outside those involved in the spending and confusion about which office was conducting the investigation.

No big deal.  It’s just a million dollars in a several trillion dollar budget.  Of course, a few million here and a few million there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

On a related note, we Oink Reporters have been putting in requests for a while now to attend a conference in someplace tropical like Hawaii.  Unfortunately, given our corpse-like pallor from slaving away on pork blogging all day, the sun would prove to much of a risk to our skin for our insurance company.

But if there’s ever a conference in Siberia…

As we’ve said before, we here at the Oink Report like to stay pretty bi-partisan.  If a politician will limit government spending, and be transparent about spending in general, we’ll stand behind him.  Or her.

No sexism here at the Oink Report.

Unfortunately, bi-partisanship in Washington DC rarely means good things for the taxpayers.  Usually, when Republicans and Democrats start working together it means we citizens are really getting taken for a ride.

To illustrate this, check out the sad state of affairs with the moratorium on pork spending. No fewer than 49 Democrats, joined by 26 Republicans, voted to kill a mere one-year moratorium on earmark spending.  Sure, it was a bi-partisan vote, but is the “spirit of working together” really to be cheered when what we’re talking about is opposition to a bill that would stop wasteful spending for just a year?

I’m sure even our kindergarten teachers, for whom cooperation and sharing were next to saintliness, would agree with us on this one.

A few days ago we intrepid bloggers here at the Oink Report brought you the strange tale of bureaucrats in Nebraska who, shockingly enough, didn’t want the pork money sent to them by politicians in Washington DC. Now it seems as though the battle over that money is heating up with the DC politicians are wondering why the locals won’t just spend the money already.

Here’s Senator Ben Nelson (D - NE) saying that the locals should make spending the money a “priority.”

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson said Wednesday that it’s difficult to convince fellow lawmakers to approve federal money to pay for roads in Nebraska, then have the state fail to follow up.

The Democrat was referring in part to $21.5 million in federal money earmarked in 2005 for the so-called Heartland Expressway, designed in the late 1970s to link Denver and Rapid City, S.D., by way of the Nebraska Panhandle.

The money was set aside as part of a federal highway bill, and the earmark was supported by Nelson and the rest of the state’s Congressional delegation, according to Nelson’s office.

But the funds sit in the federal treasury untouched. To use them, the state would have to contribute 20 percent in matching funds.

Nelson said the state should make the expressway a priority.

That’s not all Senator Nelson had to say about the matter. In another article he threatens the job of the local official who won’t spend the money saying: “If my director of roads had said something like that, he wouldn’t have been director of roads anymore.”

But the Nebraska director of the Roads Department is holding is ground, saying that spending the money isn’t really a priority:

John Craig, director of the Roads Department, said the earmark, which doesn’t expire, is part of the roads plan for the year 2012. . . .

Craig said the Department of Roads sets priorities based on traffic volume, pavement conditions and safety. The Heartland Expressway doesn’t meet the “needs” definition, he said.

If the Heartland Expressway isn’t a priority, couldn’t the state have just raised the money for it on its own instead of these funds being taken from the deficit-addled federal budget?

Maybe that would make too much sense, but we Oink Reporters are accused of making too much sense often.

We’re sure the perception we Oink Reporters is one of hard-nosed, battle-scarred anti-pork warriors who detest the idea earmarks in general.  And while we’re tickled pink at the idea of the “battle-scarred warrior” part (we like to think of ourselves as Conan the Barbarian-era Arnold Schwarzeneggers except with laptops instead of broadswords), we aren’t necessarily against all types of earmarks.

We recognize, for instance, that our nation’s highway infrastructure is of vital importance to all Americans.  It may not be immediately clear to people in Florida why they should pay to keep roads and bridges maintained in North Dakota, but when they consider that those roads are used to bring nationally important agriculture crops to market the fog lifts and the necessity of such funding is seen.

So sometimes earmarks for road projects are ok because a good network of roads is important to the whole country.  But even when it comes to common sense funding for an important and necessary component of our national infrastructure our politicians manage to be wasteful and irresponsible.

WASHINGTON — Jarrod Haberman has a “Field of Dreams” feeling about the Heartland Expressway in western Nebraska.

If they build it, people and prosperity will come, he says.

So Haberman, director of the Panhandle Area Development District, cheered when Nebraska lawmakers won a $21.5 million earmark for the expressway in a big 2005 federal highway bill.

He dreams of a day when the road ties into an upgraded north-south, Canada-to-Mexico corridor that he says could expand towns, attract businesses and boost trade in rural America.

“We were pretty enthused,” Haberman said from Gering. “It’s a lot more than just laying concrete.”

Nebraska Department of Roads officials aren’t so sure.

“A road, in and of itself, is not going to build the economy for them,” says Roads Director John Craig.

The department is letting the earmarked money sit in the federal treasury, along with another $20 million for an eastern Nebraska expressway and several million dollars for an Interstate 80 interchange near Kearney.

Nationally, some other state roads departments aren’t using millions of dollars Congress earmarked for road and bridge projects in the five-year highway bill, says the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Why?

States must kick in 20 percent matching funds, which some roads officials say they don’t have and don’t want to spend because they view Congress’ pet projects as “low priority” on their rankings of road-building needs.

In essence, tens of millions of our federal tax dollars are being shipped to a single state for road projects that local officials deem “low priority” (likely code for “unnecessary”) simply because some politician wishes it so.

Which is exactly why politicians should be trusted with as few of our tax dollars as possible.