Mississippi State and the University of Mississippi rank #1 and #2 respectively when it comes to educational earmarks from the federal government. Yet, both schools are considered Tier 3 schools in the U.S. News & World Report rankings (not the only ranking system but ultimately one of the most utilized). There is more to this story, however.
Of the $2.3 billion in federal earmarks appropriated to colleges and universities during the last fiscal year, MSU received $43 million while the University of Mississippi received $37 million. Its important, when comparing these types of numbers, to remember that alumni as well as endowments are key to figuring which schools are topping the money charts. Clearly, the Ivy League with its multi-billion dollar endowments makes competing as a state-level educational institution somewhat difficult. Indeed, over 76 colleges and universities boast endowments of over $1 billion or more.
Also, there is very little state-level support as Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the country.
Mississippi's status as one of the poorest states in the country makes funding from earmarks crucial to keeping MSU a competitive research institution, he said.
"It is important for poorer states to have the ability to go to Washington and receive funds for things, [where as] in wealthier states, it is all ready available," Schulz said.
And just like donor money, earmark money has specific deliverables. At least, they say it does, but Schulz never really referred to who is holding the school accountable.
Each earmark the school receives is closely guided and monitored to prevent any wasteful spending, he said.
"All of our projects have very specific deliverables," Schulz said. "They're not a blank check - that's sort of a misconception out there."
What would happen if this earmark process was more transparent? What if Schulz made all earmark requests public for both faculty and students to see? The school might be surprised to see a lot of the students actually care about how this money is being spent, and whether they have a say in it. And who knows, if the students had a say, maybe they'd feel empowered to do more to help the school in its struggling areas.
The overarching question is, should the Federal Government support these much less-endowed state schools and institutions so that they can at least compete with the 76 schools sitting on over $1 billion? I would think as long as the money is being tracked and the specific deliverables are being met, why not? Because of the earmark funding, MSU's Sustainable Energy Research Center has become a "competitive force in renewable energy research."
SERC Director William Batchelor said the earmarks have been rapidly used to develop new technologies, creating new renewable energy avenues in Mississippi.
"From an energy perspective, if you're trying to create a new industry, it takes large amounts of money to do so," he said. "By receiving these earmarks, we can utilize our resources that will drive this creation, especially in rural parts of our state that are looking for it," he said.
Batchelor said the earmark has helped the SERC develop three new sources of renewable energy from woody biomasses and human waste.
The former Legislative Director to Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) was arrested this past Monday on 10 corruption counts after giving gifts to several public officials as a reward for their "taking actions beneficial to [his] clients." Doolittle, of course, has been under the microscope after allegedly being tied to fallen lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He's challenging a Justice Department subpoena and hired a attorney formerly with Ken Starr's office to defend himself.
The item that caught my eye in the Wikipedia entry on Doolittle was "Small Towns pressured to hire lobbyists." Doolittle's staff apparently told California municipal employees that hiring a lobbyist "wouldn't hurt." Let's go a few thousand miles north to the town of Wasillia, AK, where then-mayor Sarah Palin hired a Washington lobbyist to give her town a bit more power inside the beltway. Clearly, there seems to be the beginnings of a trend here: state elected leaders using powerful D.C. beltway lobbyists to tap into support (read "money") from the federal government. Indeed, the New York Times noted this trend back in 2006 saying that small towns, municipalities, school districts and transit authorities are, "putting lobbyists on retainer to leverage their local tax dollars into federal tax dollars." Since they aren't getting what they need from the state, they're jumping to the federal level by hiring a lobbyist and hoping to garner more federal funds for their town.
So, what's keeping every town of seven thousand citizens from hiring lobbyists? More importantly, does this change the process and structure of how federal and state governments interact? What this seems to create is a dependency not on the state's internal resources, but instead, on those of the federal government. Instead of working within each of their own state budgets, lobbyists are hired to take the interests (needs) of small town America directly to the federal government in the hopes of securing funding for projects, thus bypassing state government altogether. This threatens the very integrity of the state political structure in that it makes it indebted to Washington, D.C. It's easier to avoid the competition within your state budget when you can hire a lobbyist in D.C. and have access to a bigger pot of potential gold.
The solution to this lies in opening up government. Earmarks, the main tool used by politicians to fund local projects with federal money, can be transparent and be pushed through an approval process allowing others to see who is requesting what money for which projects. Not only will this help clean up corrupt or questionable earmarks but it will also engage people and allow them to take part in a process that has, up until now, been left to the lobbyists, politicians and special interests.
One of the first things you can do is sign our petition asking Congress to overhaul the earmark process, open it up and take the corruptive influences out. Then find three friends who will sign it with you. The only way to change the same-old politics of D.C is to challenge it. That's what we're trying to do here at Change Congress and we hope you'll join us.
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin wants the American public to believe that she is a strong reformer and a logical teammate for Republican candidate Senator John McCain. Because of her relative freshness to the national political scene I thought I'd put together some background on her reform record.
As mayor of Wasillia, Palin hired a Washington lobbyist in order to represent the town. (That lobbyist, Steven Silver, previously had served as an aide to Senator Ted Stevens).
90% of campaign contributions during her race for governor came from individuals, not PACs. This will help her argument as being a Washington outsider.
In that same campaign, Palin accepted over $10,000 from lawyers and lobbyists.
Palin's Legislative Director has been under scrutiny due to his ties to a Juneau lobbyist who has given Palin's campaign $1500 over the past three years.
Palin joined forces with Democrats to push through new corporate oil taxes going against industry as well as her own party.
In early 2007, Palin tried to push an ethics bill through the Alaskan Legislature. SB 19 and 20 were both passed but were watered-down versions of her initial effort.
Regardless of the laundry lists being emailed around about Palin's ability and experience, we're all trying to get to know her as quick as possible. At the moment, if feels as though Palin has dipped in and out of playing the political game while at the same time trying to remain an outsider.
Hiring a Washington lobbyist on behalf of your town of 5,470 is not a compelling argument for a candidate claiming to be a reformer. However, raising taxes on Big Oil and challenging the party line does show either acute political adroitness or a maverick streak.
Based on Palin's green (and thin) record, I wouldn't say she is any more a reformer than your typical politician. And being a reformer at the state level is certainly different than being one at the federal level. But seriously, what did we expect to find after three days of media hype? More is coming I am sure.
Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is under the microscope after his friend and ally Senator Ted Stevens was handed a federal indictment on corruption charges. What's interesting is who is holding the microscope.
The Club for Growth, a conservative PAC known for their hard-hitting commercials, has released a new one hammering Young for his $10 million earmark for a road in Fort Myers, Florida.
Add Young to the list of Alaskan politicians under the microscope (along with Senator Stevens and Governor Sarah Palin).
Saturday was a busy one at Netroots Nation in Austin. After a high-energy morning starting with the anticipated Ask The Speaker event, followed by a surprise visit from Al Gore, Lawrence Lessig took the stage to dynamically discuss the ways in which money erodes trust. He gave examples from pharmaceutical issues to copyright law to environmental policy, showing how money is distorting the decisions our leaders are making. Check out the video:
Fresh off her special election victory here in the CA 12th Congressional District, Congresswoman Jackie Speier is looking to take on the problem of earmarks. Unexpectedly, Speier asked Republican Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona to begin talking about ways to approach the earmark problem. I think this is a great move on Ms. Speier's part. Earmark reform is an issue that both parties should get behind. The movement from inside the Congress to abolish earmarks is being led by a group of Republicans, of which Flake is a part of. Ms. Speier, while not clearly stating where she falls on the issue, does acknowledge that the practice needs to be curtailed.
Speier, who has been in the House for just two months, says she has been so appalled by her fellow members’ earmarking ways that she has met with Flake to discuss how they can cooperate to curtail the practice.
“The biggest surprise since I’ve been here have been earmarks,” Speier said. “I didn’t realize how insidious it was and how deep it ran and how accepting so many people are of it.”
We'll be interested to see where Congresswoman Speier ends up on the earmark issue. I imagine if she is willing to talk with Flake and other reform-minded Republicans she's also talking with her own party leaders. If any of you would like to contact Congresswoman Speier you can here. Give her a call or drop her a note to let her know you support transparency in government and reforming the earmark process now.
We don't need to tag Jackie Speier's candidate page with any additional info with this news, but it does tell us that we may be able to in the near future, if and when she comes out with a specific stand on cleaning up the corruptive practice.
Republican reformer and past Speaker of the House Newt Gingerich called for a one year moratorium on earmarks as part of his plan to get his party back on track. Actually, its not so much a plan as much as a "plea." But, its worth looking at.
His fourth of "Nine Acts of Real Change" highlights the earmark issue.
Establish an earmark moratorium for one year and pledge to uphold the presidential veto of bills with earmarks through the end of 2009. The American people are fed up with politicians spending their money. They currently believe both parties are equally bad. This is a real opportunity to show the difference.
While we're glad that earmarks made the list, I was hoping that more of the acts would include serious campaign finance reform goals and efforts. We know that Newt is not a big fan of the McCain-Feingold legislation and thinks it should be repealed because it limits the personal freedoms of voters. But the one-year moratorium proposition, as Ellen Miller pointed out in our discussions on the Google Group, is easy to jump behind due to the dirth of other publicized solutions. In the end, she says"proposals for reform have to be realistic. (Yes, they can be idealistic and realistic at the same time.)" While many Republicans, including Gingrich, feel that a one-year moratorium is realistic, many disagree. The fact is, there are fewo solutions being presented so naturally, the one that has gained in popularity, the one-year moratorium, receives the most attention and support.
The issue is not so much whether earmarks should be banned. If that is the goal, are we willing to hand over the decisions on who gets what federal money to the executive branch? Congress would never hand the government money clip over to White House administration officials, not just because they fear losing "the power of the purse," but because they understand that a representative from a district probably has a better idea of what the district needs are compared to an unelected appointee sitting in Washington. Well, we all hope they do anyway.
The issue is whether we can reform the earmark process to limit the corruption oozing from the halls of Congress, especially over the last decade. David Sirota, who worked for the Appropriations Committee, presented two possible starting points on the conundrum of earmark corruption:
1. Don't let the spenders also be the directors. Separate the group of lawmakers that approve spending from the ones that decide how to spend that money. Granted, this is how the process was originally setup but it has (obviously) broken down.
2. Full disclosure on all earmarks. Require full disclosure on all earmarks so that the public and other lawmakers have time to review all of them and know which member of Congress is responsible for each. This will help limit the phantom earmarks that appear at the last moment in bills about to be passed.
I think these are excellent points but am interested to know what others think about them.
Change Congress' own Jim Cooper of Tennessee was interviewed on Nashville's Liberadio Show and talked about the earmark conundrum and the important issues that the Change Congress community is working on. Congressman Cooper took pledges two through four and was the first member of Congress to sign on.
Those of you in the Tennessee Fightin' Fifth (and anyone else that would like to) let Jim know that you support his effort to fully support public campaigns, reform the earmark process and stand up for transparency in our government.
This community has been having a spirited debate about earmarks over in our Google Group. There are many hurdles when thinking how best to reform the practice of earmarks. The critic's are in agreement that its an abused system due to virtually no oversight and thus has become corrupted. McCain has said that he would be earmarks' "worst nightmare" by vetoing every bill that had an earmark attached. Now he's backing off the position after certain earmarks (that he would veto) were brought to his attention (U.S. aid to Israel and military housing to name a couple).
McCain's back and forth on the earmark issue is reflective of the complexity behind it. On one the hand, individuals and corporations take advantage of the process to gain federal support or business projects. On the other hand communities rely on the earmark process to receive federal funds for community development, transportation, and a multitude of other projects that benefit the community. The problem itself is bigger than any candidate for office. It's something we've relied on for more than 200 years and even our proudest leaders in history were benefiting from arguing on behalf of a young corporate America. I'm not surprised that McCain is spinning his wheels in the muck of the media after making such a swooping indictment of any and all earmarks. The issue is not one that can solved in a soundbite, although voters would like it to believe its all that simple.
There is no efficient manner in which Congress could actually approve every earmark, even in smaller groups. There are too many to number and the government would drown itself in votes around appropriations and grind to a halt. So, McCain's answer that he would "judge on the basis of need" doesn't stack up either. How would the White House efficiently oversee the thousands of projects submitted into budget bills without becoming the equivalent of your worst DMV nightmare? Part of the reason this has become such an efficient (but corrupted) process is because of how easy it is to stick in requests for federal funds in all budget bills without anyone raising a fuss or pointing a finger.
Change Congress is currently diving more deeply into the issue. Right now, we are advocating that candidates support the abolition of earmarks. This does not mean that all candidates who pledge would from this day forward vote against any bill with earmarks. It simply means that if a bill came before Congress pushing for the abolition of earmarks, those who took the pledge would support the bill. This includes options like the one-year moratorium plan that was presented by House republicans only a month ago.
That being said, we are also working to get a better sense of what other strategies are at play around the issue. Our goal is to get a more comprehensive picture of how to solve it by opening up communication with as many different organizations and people at once. We believe there has to be a way to fix the current system and we hope all of you will join in the conversation, pass along your own ideas or research that you've dug up.
Until then, we'll have to smile and chuckle with the candidates who are learning (like us) that fixing the corruptive influence of earmarks is not as easy as a soundbite.
A great piece in Sundays NY Times outlines the growth of soft earmarks in Congressional bills. Basically, a soft earmark is less recognizable and is difficult to identify because it doesn't ask for specific dollar amounts. The ask is more non-descript. It camouflages itself as a suggestion or recommendation. Thus soft earmarks are more able to slide by unnoticed compared to hard earmarks.
Their total cost is not known. But the research service found that they amounted to more than $3 billion in one spending bill alone in 2006, out of 13 annual appropriations bills. And the committee that handles the bill, which involves foreign operations, has increasingly converted hard earmarks to soft ones.
“This shows that even though lawmakers now have to disclose their pet projects, we’re not getting a full accounting of earmarks,” said Ryan Alexander, director of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group in Washington that tracks earmarks. “We may just be looking at the tip of the iceberg.”
The danger in soft earmarks is that there is no process in place to bring them to the light of day, and even if there was, it would be difficult to figure out all of the details as they are by their nature, vague.
Some folks have started a spirited debate about earmarks on our discussion group. Join the discussion so we can hear your $0.02.
