That’s right. Windbreakers. Windbreakers that help keep kids off drugs.

What’s next? Cardigans that feed the poor?

The days when the Pittsburgh Housing Authority could spend hundreds of dollars on chocolate are over.

So said its leader in advance of a report due to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl today on authority spending on concerts, coffee, clothing and more. . . .The concert was part of the authority’s Clean Slate program to keep young people off drugs, which also included giveaways of 400 windbreakers and other items.

The $7,660 cost of the windbreakers was covered by federal money, because they were characterized as educational costs. The goal, said Mr. Meachem, was to give the authority’s good kids “an identity, just like the drug dealer who has on his shirt, ‘Snitches get stitches.’ “

Anti-drug windbreakers would probably give these kids an “identity” alright. It’d say to drug dealers: “Hey, look over here! I’m a potential customer!”

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.

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.

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 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.