Saturday, March 28th, 2009 | Posted by

Smell of pork in the morning smells like hypocrisy

Jeff Walker of Floyd thinks I should be more "temperate" when it comes to chastising local Congressman Rick Boucher for his lavish use of "earmarks" (AKA Congressional pork) to buy votes in Southwestern Virginia.

Citizens watchdog groups have long cited Boucher as one of the kings of pork in Congress and he has no qualms about spending millions upon millions of federal funds to cultivate support from his district.

Two other Virginia Congressmen appear often on the walls of shame when it comes to pork: Rep. Bob Goodlatte and former Rep. Virgil Goode, whom voters had the sense to dump in the last election.

Says Walker about Boucher:

I have to say that critical comments about the Federal facilities funded through the actions of Boucher ought to be tempered as well, as our Representative he has kept his eye on the ball. We can probably agree that there is a role to be played by the Fed in taking on projects that are not appropriate for private initiatives.

This is what I love about the hypocrisy of local bias. What Walker sees as Boucher keeping "his eye on the ball" is, in the eyes of watchdog groups like Citizens Against Government Waste, just plain, old-fashioned pork.

And it is.

An example:

$400,000 by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) for horseshoe crab research at Virginia Tech.  According to a March 28, 2008 Richmond Times Dispatch article, “The horseshoe crab’s blood is useful in intravenous medications and has cancer-fighting properties.”  This is a crabby case of corporate welfare; companies that need the research should pay for it.

Or this:

Virginia Pork for Crabs and Sheep

The 2009 federal budget will include funding for some strange animals if one Virginia lawmaker has his way.

Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat from southwest Virginia, has requested $744,325 to study the horseshoe crab and $250,000 for hair sheep – a unique bread of short-haired sheep that does not require shearing.

Both requests would go to Virginia Tech, which already has efforts to establish a “hair sheep research center” to study the genetics of the sheep and improve the animal’s resistance to parasites, and get more people to buy the lamb’s meat.

…Critics of earmarks, like David Williams, a vice president at Citizens Against Government Waste, laughed at the requests.

“Would it be inappropriate to say, ‘This is baaaad,‘” Williams joked. “Those are ridiculous local projects that should not be paid for by taxpayers across the country.” …

The article goes on to defend the earmarks as being necessary for food supply and even medicine, but because these projects are earmarks, they have not been properly vetted.  Even if these were national priorities, how do we know if southwestern Virginia is the best place for funding projects of this kind?  Rep. Boucher isn’t asking for funding based on any proven merit, but because it will go to his district.

Or this from last year’s Roanoke Times:

To distant watchdogs targeting wasteful spending by Congress, some federal funds flowing to Southwest and Southside Virginia this year may raise eyebrows.

Such as $245,000 for awnings and infrastructure improvements at the historic farmers market in downtown Roanoke. Or $149,000 to control coyotes. Or $98,000 to expand the Bassett Historical Center.

Those are examples of targeted federal spending, or "earmarks," secured by the three veteran congressmen who represent Southwest Virginia — Republicans Bob Goodlatte of Roanoke County and Virgil Goode of Rocky Mount, and Democrat Rick Boucher of Abingdon.

Boucher had a hand in $9.4 million worth of earmarks in the current fiscal year, according to the database.

The Times goes on to offer some defense of Boucher’s pork by listing only projects that benefit "first responders" and other projects that appear justifiable, at least on the surface. Not surprising: The Times has never been shy about defending local pork.

But don’t expect my comments on pork spending to "be tempered" simply because our local Congressman is using the pork for our area. Pork is still pork and I don’t look the other way when the lard is ladled into Southwestern Virginia.

You want temperance? Try a summer tent revival. You won’t find it here.

7 Responses for “Smell of pork in the morning smells like hypocrisy”

  1. Doug Thompson says:
    March 30, 2009 at 4:55 am

    Jeff:

    I’m sorry but I believe you suffer from a perception disease that I saw all too often while working on Capitol Hill, running a political action committee or covering politics as a journalist: A perception that other members of Congress are corrupt but "not my Congressman."

    Rick does a credible job of keeping his constituents happy but he is just as much of a pork-barrel generator as others cited by citizen watchdog groups. The fact that you find the two Republican members of Congress cited guilty while absolving the Democrat also suggests a parstian double-standard also comes into play.

    Elected officials use pork to stay in office. The fact that Boucher, a Democrat, remains in office in a district that is largely Republican is testament to his ability to deliver the pork to Southwestern Virginia.

    But at what cost? From my point of view, Boucher and others who use pork to buy votes sacrifice honesty and integrity, as do those who support his lard-laden policy simply because he delivers federal tax dollars to the region.

    We won’t agree on this, in part, I believe, because I’m not burdened by the blinders of local bias or partisan rationalizations. Politics thrives on greed and those who remain in office do so because they pander to the greed of voters.

  2. Jeff T. Walker says:
    March 29, 2009 at 9:55 am

    Doug, I sympathize with your point of view; which I gather is influenced by your experience in the PAC work, as well as perhaps an epiphany brought by an investigative perspective on governmental expenditure. I have never worked in policy, though I have had reason to influence same, at one time as an hourly employee in the local fuel ethanol industry, and consequently as an unaffiliated concerned citizen influencing policy for considerably less direct benefits.

    We are ultimately on the receiving end of all policy and expenditure and levy. My point w/ regards to the Congressman is that he has balanced the tasks of serving his constituents; both as a sub-set of the national population, and as an aggregate, that require or expect or otherwise benefit from services provided by the Fed. There are winners and losers in every policy, expenditure and law; and I hope that we can agree that he has served us better than most Congressmen, he has proven to have his ear turned toward us. True I do not agree with every project he has brought us, indeed I could criticize the details in all of them of which I am familiar; but we are not in the position to pick and choose. And I cringe at your characterization of me a recipient of Federal largesse, let’s not get personal here; I am still in the tax paying phase of life, and I expect some return to our economy, and am satisfied even if it does not create a direct benefit, so long as it doesn’t create negative results for our community. I will join you in criticizing the substitution of cash, for comprehension. I also believe that if I, or you, were to contact the Congressman he would integrate our concerns.

    In my opinion Boucher should not be lumped into the same sentence as Goode, Goodelatte or other failed politicians. I suggest this not due to my affinity for his politics, which I am comfortable with, but due to his willingness to intervene on his constituents behalf, while serving the nation’s interest. The shortcomings of the budget process are due for revision, and the closer one is to understanding the subject of allocation the more emotion one may generate.

    Would you suggest that the governors that are rejecting extended unemployment benefits, are in the right by making a political statement at the expense of eligible recipients? I maintain that the political reality is clear, if in the course of managing the Countries business (financial and policy)the Congressman did not bring home some bacon, he would not deserve the support that he has enjoyed.

    He was not elected on a platform of changing the rules of the game. That would indeed be robbing the pig of his spots.

    Change is in the wind, and I applaud you for fanning the breeze. I have enjoyed sharing the platform with you,
    Regards,
    Jeff

  3. Doug Thompson says:
    March 29, 2009 at 3:00 am

    Jeff:

    That’s the kind of defense I expect from recipients of federal largesse: Those who support pork when it lands in their backyard see the federal government as a fat piggybank that can be tapped for their own use and pleasure and you are using the old technique of diversion to avoid the real issue.

    The issue here was not just the Parkway but your suggestion that I should back off on Boucher because he is, in your opinion, keeping his "eye on the ball."

    Are the users of the so-called "Smart Road" paying for the millions of federal tax money going into it? Of course not. There are no users. The taypapers paid the tab.

    Are the users of the Parkway paying for the horseshoe crab and sheep research? Of course not. Your tax dolalrs at work…or at waste.

    Will the users of the Parkway payk pay for construction of the Blue Ride Music Center? Oops. Too late. Federal tax money went for that while the maintenance budget was begging for funds. Guess Congressman Boucher forget to keep his eye on that ball.

    Users of the Parkway are paying for the facility — through their tax dollars. Users of the roads in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park are not expected to shell out tolls or user fees to drive on the road because that facility and the states recognized that a road can, and should, be used to transportation as well as tourism.

    If our Congressman and his other cronies in Capitol Hill had been keeping thier "eyes on the ball" instead of spreading the lard around for so many pet projects there might have been more available for worthwhile projects like upkeep of a national treasure like the Parkway.

    I stand by what I way as well. Pork is pork and it is shortsighted local hypocrisy to look the other way when the pork lands on your dinner plate.

  4. Jeff T. Walker says:
    March 28, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    Doug, that’s not Pork, get a better photo!
    I stand by my remarks, the Parkway ought to be funded by users, and the Fed has a roll to play in functions that may not be commercially viable, but do have a higher public interest.
    Regards,
    Jeff

  5. Jeff Blakley says:
    March 30, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    Doug,

    Until I read this piece, I wasn’t aware of Citizens Against Government Waste”. According to a blurb on the website,

    “CAGW takes after liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. The group is an equal opportunity nag.”

    -Syndicated Columnist Pete Pichaske

    But I don’t see any alternative to the process of awarding earmarks. I think it is a bit much to expect all of us to keep a keen eye on every move that our leaders make and also work and raise our families. There must be a better way! Any suggestions?

  6. Doug Thompson says:
    March 31, 2009 at 6:59 am

    Jeff:

    CACW is non-partisan, which is a rarity among activitist groups. That’s why I like them.

    An alternative to earmarks is a system where such projects are vetted on need, priority and value.  Under the present system, a member of Congress has virtually-unlimited power to award earmarks without any kind of review or oversight. As CACW has noted in some of its review of Rick Boucher’s earmarks, the project themselves may have merit but that was no review to see if this area was the best place for such a project or if an educational institution like Virginia Tech (in the crab study for example) was the best university to handle the research.

    As members of Congress rise in seniority and power their ability to hand out earmarks without question or review increases.

  7. Jeff Blakley says:
    March 31, 2009 at 8:18 am

    Doug,

    I dug around a little bit more on the CAGW site and found the answer to my question. There is already an established procedure in place to award federal money to institutions for research and companies for work. The earmark procedure (attaching appropriations to unrelated bills) is a end run around the established procedure, is subject to corruption, and needs to be eliminated. Thanks for bringing this topic up – I learned something.

Comments are closed