You don’t say: Earmarks often used to fund projects near congressmen’s own property
Thirty-three members of Congress have steered more than $300 million in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or within about two miles of the lawmakers’ own property, according to a Washington Post investigation.
Under the ethics rules Congress has written for itself, this is both legal and undisclosed.
The Post analyzed public records on the holdings of all 535 members and compared them with earmarks members had sought for pet projects, most of them since 2008. The process uncovered appropriations for work in close proximity to commercial and residential real estate owned by the lawmakers or their family members. The review also found 16 lawmakers who sent tax dollars to companies, colleges or community programs where their spouses, children or parents work as salaried employees or serve on boards…
Mere proximity to a lawmaker’s property does not establish that an earmark was unwarranted. In some cases, the public benefit of the spending was large, improving life for thousands. In others, the benefit appeared narrower. In some cases, the work was within a mile or two of the properties; in others, it was directly in front of the lawmaker’s land.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Two words:Harry Reid
petefrt on February 7, 2012 at 7:38 AM
And the demagoguery over earmarks continues, and the ignorant public laps it up.
Dante on February 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM
I work in West Virginia. You can’t move 100 yards without seeing some edifice named after democrat Robert “KKK” Byrd that was funded with taxpayer dollars.
wildcat72 on February 7, 2012 at 7:43 AM
Boss TWEED the more things change the more they stay the same.
unseen on February 7, 2012 at 7:46 AM
Can we make a law that a politician (local or national) should be dead for at least 20 years before their name gets put on anything?
Fallon on February 7, 2012 at 7:51 AM
How about outlawing the use of Federal dollars to name anything after any government employee other than soldiers?
wildcat72 on February 7, 2012 at 7:53 AM
This shocking headline stopper clearly calls for the Louie Renault award.
jwolf on February 7, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Much better.
Fallon on February 7, 2012 at 8:09 AM
Add this to the list of things that Term Limits would fix.
hoosiermama on February 7, 2012 at 8:23 AM
In Oklahoma, most road projects go to Oklahoma City. Inhofe lives in the Tulsa Area where Owasso is located. One of the reasons why Inhofe took the transportation committee was to get some of the road money returned to Oklahoma and Tulsa, which has always paid in more than they got out. Note – Tulsa does not even have train service. The road you are babbling about is one of the most congested in the state and handles an enormous amount of commuter and American Airlines maintenance traffic. This had nothing to do with his wife’s business. Also note that Most of the divided highways and interstates are toll roads around Tulsa. We have to pay for them somehow. Anything to get a republican. Sc**w you and your opinions!
Old Country Boy on February 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM
You can’t get anything past those crack journalists at WaPo.
Obama’s background? Zzzzzzzzz….
BuckeyeSam on February 7, 2012 at 8:48 AM
I just commented on the Washington Post that this is a good job of reporting. No, it doesn’t make up for all the other slanted articles, hatchet jobs, etc., but a little credit where credit is due.
Too bad such investigative research-based articles are so out of style in favor of pure hit-pieces.
Drained Brain on February 7, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Term limits sound great but has anybody discovered a way to handle it to prevent the unelected civil servant bureaucrats from completely running the show?
If you ever saw the BBC series Yes Minister you’ll know what I’m talking about.
Drained Brain on February 7, 2012 at 9:17 AM
Term limits will do nothing to stop this. nothing. in fact if the politician knows he/she can’t run for re-election they will INCREASe the amount of pork and crony capitalism in their final term to pad their accounts for the future of non representative career. They will push contracts to companies that promise to “hire” them when their term limited term is over. They will push funds to there campaign contributors to ensure their finacial well being when they get booted from office. The only way to stop this is send people to jail. They are thieves all 536 of them both rep and dem all are stealing us, the taxpayer, blind.
unseen on February 7, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Term limits would fix appropriations bills? You realize a) this is one of Congress’ Constitutional duties, and b) the spending is determined in a different bill, right?
Dante on February 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM
That’s why Congress should be earmarking everything, and leaving the Executive Branch simply to handle to contracts and performance.
JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Old news. That’s why it’s in WaPo.
Akzed on February 7, 2012 at 10:59 AM