Charles Black, a former lobbyist for BKSH & Associates who now works as an unpaid volunteer for John McCain, is now saying that earmarks promote bad government and are totally “out of control.”

One of Washington’s most powerful critics of earmarks as wasteful and irresponsible use of taxpayer funds is Sen. John McCain.

Black, who has given up his lobbying practice to work as an unpaid volunteer for McCain, agrees.

“I believe that his philosophy is correct, that we shouldn’t have earmarks, and that it would be better government not to,” Black
said. “But when I was in the lobbying business, I played by the rules as they were. … There’s no doubt that earmarks have completely gotten out of control.”

Amazing how one’s tune changes when things like “career” and “money” are removed from the equation, no?

The main problem with earmarks is not so much that the federal government spends money at the local level (though that does present problems from the federalist perspective) but rather that they represent the perfect vehicle for quid pro quo arrangements among politicians.

Local kingmakers get politicians to fund special projects for them in exchange for supporting the politicians, and the politicians vote for one another’s pork as favors for each other. Ending earmarks wouldn’t end political corruption, but it would put a cork in one particularly virulent outlet for it.

Your daily dose of government waste news:

• More than 70% of Alaskans oppose funding for “bridge to nowhere” in new poll but bridge authority claims 70% support it
• Alaska legislature drops funding for “bridge to nowhere”
• $4.2 million federal earmark helps pay for purchase of property from Vermont golf club
• Federal grants now available for public shooting-range projects
• New Jersey island communities to hire Washington lobbyist to secure federal earmark funding for beach enhancement

Education funding is undoubtedly one of the most emotional issues in American politics, mostly because education plays directly into the lives of our children.  And schools never cease to ask for more money.  There is probably not an educator in America who would say that his/her school is adequately funded.  But on the flip side, many people say that schools are more than adequately funded and that educators use the lack-of-funding ruse as a way to excuse poor performance.

So given the heated, emotional environment school funding issues exist in it’s little wonder that wasteful expenditures of education funding seem especially heinous.  And when those expenditures include money for an inflatible alligator and an under-water slide that are supposedly to help “reading instruction,” it’s almost enough to make us want to blow our tops.

CLEBURNE — State auditors affirmed assertions by a citizens watchdog group that the Cleburne school district misspent federal funds for staff retreats, a trip to Mexico, excessive travel expenses and other items. . . .

The report sharply criticized district officials for inadequate internal controls, which the auditors said resulted in the misuse of $367,000 in federal funds. . . .

Documents were not provided to show that a staff trip to Mexico had been approved by the TEA before the trip, as required by the grant. Auditors also noted that the trip, which included community volunteers, did not fall under allowable uses of grant funds.

The districts did not provide adequate documentation to support a $9,800 administrative retreat to a Glen Rose resort and two retreats for Cleburne Middle School staff that cost a total of $3,000. Auditors said also said those retreats did not meet grant guidelines and exceeded the state travel allowance.

The district did not provide lesson plans or other documentation to show how rental of an inflatable alligator and an under-the-sea water slide supported reading instruction.

Inflatable alligators are fun.  No doubt about it.  And we Oink Reporters have probably enjoyed more than our fair share of fun in Mexico, but such things have little to do with improving education.

Your daily dose of government waste news:

• Chicago aquarium “sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in net assets” received $1.8 million in earmarks from members of Congress who received campaign donations from Aquarium officials
• Miami Beach Teen Club used part of a $50,000 earmark to take club members white water rafting in Tennessee; “That’s a lot of white water rafting trips,” joked Congresswoman who requested the money
• Mississippi Congressman earmarked $478,492 to examine the feasibility of establishing a medical school that the Commissioner of Higher Education says that state has no intention of opening
• Members of Congress from New York promise to earmark millions of dollars to transform a bridge into the longest walkway bridge in the world
• Alaska village may be relocated at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; Most of exploratory work being paid for with $4.2 million Congressional earmark
• Obscure Florida road leads to controversy
• “The Road to Somewhere Shady”
• Congressional ethics group calls Senate vote for DOJ investigation into earmark scandal is “nothing more than Kabuki theater given the likely constitutional impediment to a Justice Department investigation”

One facet of the pork spending issue that often goes overlooked in debates is the costs inherent to government distributing hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax dollars back to us.  Those opposed to earmark reform often tell us that earmarks are a necessary method of appropriation, and that without federal earmarks many localities would suffer from bad water, untreated sewage and poorly maintained roads/bridges.

But what these people don’t tell us is the fact that the federal money being appropriated through earmarks came from our wallets and purses in the first place.  What earmarks are, essentially, is the government taking our tax dollars and then turning around and giving it back to us for a myriad of projects from bike paths to new bridges.  And in doing so, the federal government takes a big cut of all those tax dollars for the purposes of administering their collection and redistribution.

Take, for instance, this $13.4 million earmark for Massachussetts fishermen.   Whether or not it’s appropriate for government at any level to be subsidizing private industry, but what’s definitely not appropriate is the federal government’s decision to take $481,751 out of that earmark for “administering” it.  That amount, on top of the $338,249 the state of Massachusetts is taking, seems like an excessive amount of money for taxpayes to pay in order to have their own money distributed back to them.

And, if we think of this logically, wouldn’t it make more sense for the federal government to just lower taxes so that more of that money stays in the pockets of local taxpayers who could then decide, locally, if they want to spend it on bikepaths?  Or bailouts for the fishing industry?

The big lie in earmarks is that they represent helpful money sent to local projects from the federal government.  The reality is that those earmarks come from local taxpayers who must pay the federal government to not only collect it from them but also to give it back to them.

Your daily dose of government waste news:

• Texas Congressman denies any wrongdoing for directing earmarks to an Alabama company that contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaign
• New Jersey Congressman who earmarked $624,000 for his wife’s employer denies wrongdoing
• Congressman has spent more than $1 million on legal fees to fend off federal investigations into earmarks, political favors, and campaign contributors
• With Nevada facing multi-billion shortfall in basic highway and transportation funding, Nevada Senator earmarks billions to develop a magnetic levitation train between Las Vegas and Disneyland
• Most earmarks are not effective according to poll of newspaper readers and 78% said they should be banned

In the world of politics the accusation of being “disconnected” gets thrown around a lot.  Barack Obama was accused of being disconnected from rural voters when he suggested that they cling to guns, religion and dislike of people not like them because they’re “bitter.”  Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have accused President Bush of being “disconnected” from the war in Iraq.

But a certain congressman from Connecticut brings a whole new meaning to the word “disconnected” as he ponders, publicly and with an apparently straight face, why people care so much about pork.

Congressman Chris Shays got an earful on earmarks, immigration, Iraq and other issues April 11 during a community meeting in Ridgefield. . . .

The 10-term Congressman stepped into a political minefield as he fielded questions on earmarks and farm subsidies. Earmarks are essentially pet projects the House pays for with part of the federal gasoline tax. . . .

“My impression of earmarks is why would somebody in Oklahoma or Nebraska care about a project in Massachusetts?” Mr. Shays said.

We don’t know, Mr. Shays.  Maybe it’s because people in Oklahoma, Nebraska and the rest of the country care about how their money is spent wherever it’s being spent.  If we can care about the cost of the war in Iraq, and the amount of foreign aid we’re giving to Mexico, then certainly we can care about the amount spent on earmarks in Massachusetts however politically inconvenient that curiousity and concern may be for those doing the earmarking.

Latter in the article Rep. Shays states that he doesn’t know why he should get a say on transportation money going to San Francisco.  Maybe the good people of Connecticut should send a Representative to Congress who does care about how their money is spent.

We think Rep. Shays’ comments illustrate the fundamental problem with politicians and spending.  They don’t seem to remember that the money they spendin Washington isn’t the government’s money, but rather our money.  And that we deserve to know exactly how and why every single dime of it is being spent.

Here’s your daily dose of government waste news:

• Officials plead guilty to public-corruption and conspiracy charges for taking bribes to steer federal funds to politically connected defense contractors
• Former director of Smithsonian center charged taxpayers for salon, spa and gift shop purchases and stays at five-star hotels with ocean views and Jacuzzi suites
• Massachusetts seaside communities battle each other for federal funds for beach sand
• Whistleblower repeatedly warned not to look into troubled agency’s budget by officials who used federal funds to pay themselves huge salaries and bonuses

We here at the Oink Report sometimes wonder if our day-in, day-out exposure of government corruption and waste doesn’t sometimes get a little depressing for our readers. Especially around tax time as we all contemplate what much of this waste and corruption is costing us.

So it does give us pleasure this tax day to show you that there are actually some good guys in Government who are trying to make things better, even if at times it all feels a little futile.

A new report shows the government’s inspectors general are producing better results, even as critics complain staffing and budgets at many IG offices fall short.

The report from the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, an interagency inspectors general group, reported that IGs in fiscal 2007 produced more than $16 billion in savings through audits and investigations that uncovered waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in government programs and operations. Those investigations led to almost 9,000 successful prosecutions. Both statistics were increases over the 2006 figures.

Of course, this isn’t all good news. We don’t mean to send you out on a downer, but consider that while these inspectors and auditors are exposing waste and saving us money they themselves - along with their audits and investigations - are costing us tax dollars.

Hopefully they didn’t cost us more than the $16 billion they saved.

Your daily dose of government waste news:

• Defense firm forged close ties to Congress to get no-bid contracts
• Texas Congressmen request earmark money for out of state—and even of the country—pet projects
• Virginia town stopped from using federal funds to reimburse itself for cost of payment of a loan for “a high-end downtown hotel and restaurant complex”
• $500,000 Congressional earmark for a pedestrian underpass at a Vermont town’s intersections intended to provide “the essential link to shopping centers and restaurants, according to town officials”
• The $33 million bike path in Louisiana; $1 million earmark pays for latest extension and $125,000 federal grant pays to study the next extension
• “Tug of war” between federal agency and the local politicians over earmark continues