Senate Protects Earmarking in Spite of Debt Crisis

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement today after the Senate rejected an earmark ban by a vote of 39 to 56. The earmark moratorium, sponsored by Senators Coburn, McCaskill, McCain, and Udall, would have applied to all bills in fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
*****
“Today’s vote shows that many in Congress still do not get it when it comes to understanding the severity of our economic challenges. Pork-barrel spending distracts Congress from doing the hard work of tackling our debt and deficit crisis. Still, the American people should be encouraged that more Senators are willing to listen. Five years ago, the Senate voted to protect the Bridge to Nowhere by a vote of 82 to 15. Today, 39 Senators vote to end earmarking altogether. I’ll continue to offer this amendment until Congress ends this egregious practice once and for all,” Dr. Coburn said.
*****
“In Congress, earmarking is not our prerogative; it is our pleasure. Our nation flourished for 200 years without an earmark favor factory run by career politicians and lobbyists. For instance, earmarks in the highway bill went from 10 in 1982 to more than 7,000 in 2005. This year, members of Congress have requested more than 37,000 earmarks. Our national survival is at stake because politicians have discovered constitutional powers in all kinds of areas that were never envisioned by our founders. If our founders wanted Congress to indulge in pork-barrel spending they would have included that in the enumerated powers. They clearly did not,” Dr. Coburn said.
*****
“Some claim that debating a practice that accounts for a small percentage of the budget distracts Congress from the important work of balancing the budget. That argument might have merit if Congress was doing the hard work of balancing the budget, which it has not been doing for decades. We have a $14 trillion debt and are on brink of becoming Greece or Ireland in part because earmarks are the gateway drug that has facilitated Congress’ addiction to spending. As earmarks exploded so did the size of the federal budget, which has doubled in the past decade,” Dr. Coburn said.

"SHED FRED" IN THE NEWS!

Fred Harris, from Walters, OK, beat OU coach Bud Wilkinson in 1964 and served in the US Senate for 8 years. He was very liberal, was DNC Chairman, and ran for President in 1972. I had a 'SHED FRED' bumper sticker on my Super Beetle in college. Harris teaches Political Science in New Mexico. More on Fred at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_R._Harris. Below is an interesting article about him from The Hill. Steve

Former Sen. Fred Harris (D-Okla.) visited Capitol Hill in September according to The Hill to drop off some documents that link President John F. Kennedy to some of the most important figures in Senate history. The 79-year-old Harris handed Senate Historian Donald Ritchie two bulging file folders from a committee headed by then-Sen. Kennedy in 1957 that chose the first five of the eight senators whose portraits now hang in the Senate Reception Room. Harris, who was elected in 1964 to serve out the term of late Democrat Robert S. Kerr and won a full term in 1966 before retiring in 1972 to run for president, was given the files by then-Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.), whom he sat next to in the Senate. The documents, which include many in JFK’s handwriting, chronicle the panel’s deliberations as it chose Henry Clay of Kentucky, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Robert LaFollette Sr. of Wisconsin and Robert Taft Sr. of Ohio as the five “most distinguished” senators whose portraits would be displayed in the ornate room. Three other senators’ portraits have since been added — those of Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan and Robert Wagner of New York, in 2000, and of Oliver Ellsworth, a drafter of the Constitution and later Senator from Connecticut and U.S. Chief Justice, in 2002.

by Steve Fair

JINGO: ‘One who vociferously supports one's country.’

The Oklahoman’s editorial this morning (http://newsok.com/how-house-leader-get-his-wish-for-focus-on-substance/article/3519085?custom_click=headlines_widget) attacking ‘the right fringe’ of the House GOP caucus borders on blasphemy. It also reveals they are out of touch with their readership and clueless on what will move Oklahoma forward.
*****
The editorial attacks so called ‘jingo’ bills as legislation that is unnecessary and irrelevant. Most of these so called ‘jingo’ bills are the ones that define who we are and what we stand for. Jingo activists have been the driving force of why Oklahoma has a Republican majority in the legislature and Republicans in all the statewide elected offices. Jingos are why Oklahoma has the most conservative congressional delegation in Washington. Jingos are capitalists who provide jobs for hard working Oklahomans. They buy papers out of the racks (that only work half the time), and purchase advertising. Jingos are principled, ethical people who want to leave the state in better shape than they found it.
*****
The Oklahoman seems intent on pushing a policy of ‘governing from the center.’ In recent op/eds, they have encouraged incoming Speaker of the House Kris Steele, (R-Shawnee) and incoming GOP statewide elected officials to be pragmatic and to not get bogged down with ‘jingo’ issues and to concentrate on economic development in Oklahoma.
*****
What they fail to understand is that economic and moral issues are linked. Henry Hazlitt, an American economist and Wall Street Journal writer, said “Economics and ethics are, in fact, intimately related. Both are concerned with human action, human conduct, human decision, human choice… There is hardly an ethical problem, in fact, without its economic aspect. Our daily ethical decisions are in the main economic decisions, and nearly all our daily economic decisions have, in turn, an ethical aspect.”
*****
In 'The Inseparable Link between Morality and Economics' (http://jpatton.bellevue.edu/biblical_economics/morality-economics.html) published in 1992 by the Bellevue University Economics Department, author, Dr. Judd Patton wrote: “Economic principles reveal cause and effect relationships and simultaneously “tell” mankind what he ought to do or advocate because they are in harmony with moral precepts, The Ten Commandments. Our conclusion is that morality and economics are components in one indivisible body of science.”
*****
In his well known book entitled, The Truth About the Great Depression, Dr. Hans Sennholz said: “In God’s world, causes and consequences are connected logically. To offend against an economic principle, or to disobey an ethical commandment is to suffer the inexorable consequences of our action… His eternal laws and principles invariably exact a price for all offenses.”
*****
The right ‘jingo’ bills will foster a climate of moral and economic development. Ignoring the Creator of heaven and earth in legislation will guarantee moral and economic failure.

Weekly Opinion Editorial

OKLAHOMA GOVERNMENT & LAYOFFS!
by Steve Fair

Governor elect Mary Fallin said in a interview last week that Oklahomans voted for smaller more efficient government when they swept Republicans into statewide offices. Fallin said in The Oklahoman, “The people of Oklahoma have spoken very clearly in the election that they do want change, that they expect solutions to problems, that they want government to be efficient and effective, that they don't want taxpayer money wasted. But they want results. They want us to give our children and our communities the very best possible future.”
*****
Fallin went on to say, “I'll spend a lot of time on the budget and budgetary issues, looking at state programs — which ones are functioning, which ones are not functioning, which ones are relevant, which ones are not relevant to today,” she said. “You have to inspect what you expect out of state government.”
*****
On November 2nd Oklahomans did vote for smaller government, but whether they will get it remains to be seen. Last legislative session, the Republicans missed a golden opportunity to begin the ‘right sizing’ government initiative. Instead they elected to go with ‘across the board’ cuts at all state agencies because it was easier and less time consuming. The across the board cuts did not take into account the mission/importance/relevance of each agency. Instead of implementing ‘zero based’ budgeting and requiring every state agency to justify every dollar they requested, the lawmakers took the path of least resistance.

*****
What Oklahoma government really needs is a good old fashioned layoff. In the private sector when business is bad and revenue is down, people lose their job. That rarely happens in government. In fact, job security is one of the key selling points government uses to recruit new employees. As Ronald Reagan said, “the closest thing to eternal life on this earth is a government agency.” But that may be changing.

*****
According to Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, local and state government is the largest employer in the U.S., providing a combined 19.5 million jobs, including 2.2 million in California alone. Over the past two years that number has been cut by more than 400,000. That includes 100,000 in California, just in this past year. According to Zandi, state and local governments across the country are still cutting jobs at a pace of 25,000 to 30,000 per month. But we are not seeing those types of cuts in Oklahoma. Take for example, the largest state agency in Oklahoma.

*****
The Oklahoma Department of Human Services has over eight thousand employees and has an annual budget of over 1.7 billion dollars. They have offices in all seventy seven counties. Former State Senator Howard Hedrick(an R) now Director of DHS, has a goal of maintaining his staffing numbers over the next five years, not reducing them.
*****
If you do not believe there is significant waste in an agency the size of DHS, you are incredibly naïve, According to DHS; thirty six (36) percent of the 8,000 employees (2,880) at DHS will be eligible for retirement by 2014, which presents the agency a unique opportunity to ‘retool.’
*****
In a 52 page strategic plan entitled, “Everyday Heroes,” Hedrick says, “OKDHS’ priorities are to protect the most vulnerable of society and to identify and address social conditions that lead to the abuse and neglect of these individuals. Work has proven a somewhat successful strategy for many of these challenges.” The entire five year strategic plan can be accessed online at: http://www.okdhs.org/NR/rdonlyres/60C99DEC-6447-43D2-8856-53BE0F79B056/0/S080183_OklahomaDepartmentOfHuicPlanFY20072014_oprs_090120081.pdf
*****

Vulnerable means, “One who is open to attack or damage.” The most vulnerable of society in Oklahoma is the taxpayer! Their income is under attack and their standard of living is being damaged by a bloated wasteful government. Oklahoma government is long overdue for a ‘right sizing,’ but will the elected officials have the courage to do it?

*****
Three things need to be done to ‘right size’ Oklahoma government: : (1) Implement ‘zero based budgeting’ for all state agencies, (2) Prioritize ‘essential’ government services and fund accordingly, and (3) Consolidate agencies and eliminate duplication of personnel and services. Executing these will take more time and effort than past legislatures have put into the budget process, but the result will be a more efficient and effective government- exactly what was promised during the campaigns.

*****
Edmund Burke said, “Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.” Unfortunately an elected official’s hypocrisy can cost the taxpayer plenty.

Weekly Opinion Editorial

DIGITAL TEXTBOOKS COULD SAVE STATE MONEY!

by Steve Fair

State Representative Don Armes, (R-Faxon) is looking into using electronic devices in Oklahoma classrooms instead of standard textbooks. Armes, a former high school teacher, says it will save schools money and it is the future.
*****
"Our children have already taken that giant leap into technology so this would not be an adjustment for them. Now we just need to see if it’s financially feasible,” said Armes. “We have over 659,000 students in Oklahoma and if we could even save $10 per student on changing a book over to an electronic technology format, that would save over $6 million for Oklahoma schools.”
*****
“This study was not to force any schools into doing something they don’t want to do, but to be a catalyst tool to get people thinking about shifting from hard-back text books to some form of electronic format,” said Armes. “There has to be some cost savings involved and any money we can save for the schools is worth it.”
*****
Digital textbooks are quickly gaining acceptance in higher education because online texts cost students substantially less than paper textbooks. But while cheaper, most college students still prefer the text they can touch. The National Association of College Stores crunched some numbers about college students and textbooks vs. ebooks and found that seventy four (74) percent of college students still prefer using a print textbook in the classroom. They also found that fifty six (56) percent of college students had downloaded an on-line text.
*****
The state that has been on the cutting edge of the digital textbook drive is California. In May 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger launched his ‘Digital Textbook Initiative.’ With so many of his states schools struggling financially, Schwarzenegger directed his Secretary of Education to find a way to provide free digital resources to the schools.
*****
William Habermehl, superintendent of the 500,000- student Orange County, California schools said in an August 2009 New York Times story, “In five years, I think the majority of students will be using digital textbooks. They can be better than traditional textbooks. We’re still in a brick-and-mortar, 30-students-to 1 teacher paradigm, but we need to get out of that framework to having 200-300 kids taking courses online, at night, 24/7, whenever they want.”

*****

Habermehl went on to say, “I don’t believe that charters and vouchers are the threat to schools in Orange County. What is a threat is the digital world- that someone’s going to put together brilliant $200 courses in French or a geometry class taught by the best teachers in the world.”

*****
In Fairfax, Virginia, they are trying on-line textbooks for a year to see how they will work out. The schools system has the initial cost of providing an electronic reader like an I-pad, Nook or Kindle for the students, but they save money long term because the on-line versions of the textbooks are 25% of the cost of conventional texts and are easily updated.
*****
Crescent, Oklahoma is a small town of about 1,200 in Logan County. According to Steve Shiever, superintendent at Crescent High School, all the students in grades six through 12 have gone completely online with no paper textbooks. Instead, students use laptops with downloaded material. The teachers post all curriculum, lessons and worksheets online for students to access, and pupils then submit their finished work online. Everything is on a secured server that is password protected and the parents have 24/7 access to their child’s grades and attendance records.

*****

The Crescent Superintendent said the students were given the laptops at no cost to them but are required to pay a $70 a year insurance fee.“This teaches them a lesson of ownership. If it was completely free, they probably would be more likely to not take care of it,” said Shiever. “Out of my annual school budget, currently only 3.1 percent goes to technology, which includes our technology director’s salary. That’s very little.”
*****
The real challenge will not be getting the students to accept on-line texts. It will be teachers and administrators who want to cling to their hard copy textbook- the fear of change. But as Churchill said, “there is nothing wrong with change if it is in the right direction.”
*****
Armes is barking up the right tree. Textbooks are expensive for state school districts and require updates about every three years. School districts could save millions over the long haul by embracing the concept. And for the liberals, it would save a lot of trees.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

EARMARKS:INHOFE & COBURN ON OPPOSITE SIDES!

by Steve Fair

In Congress a legislative ‘earmark’ is a provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees, usually to a local project. Earmarks can be either ‘hardmarks’ or softmarks.’ Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law, but generally have the same binding effect.

*****
Senator Jim DeMint, (R-SC) says he will force a showdown next week with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-KY), and other old guard Republicans over "earmarked" pet projects that DeMint says are a symbol of out–of–control deficit spending. The South Carolina Republican, buoyed by support from six GOP freshmen, is optimistic he'll win a change in internal GOP rules to effectively bar any Republican from seeking earmarks. "Americans want Congress to shut down the earmark favor factory, and next week I believe House and Senate Republicans will unite to stop pork barrel spending," DeMint said.

*****
McConnell, however, isn't enthusiastic about the idea of a ban now. And he finds himself caught in the middle of an unwelcome battle dividing his party and opening it to criticism from anti–pork tea party activists who helped Republicans take back the House and elect several anti–earmark senators. The issue of earmarks has Oklahoma’s two U.S. Senators on opposite sides. Senator Inhofe is for keeping earmarks as part of the budget process and Senator Coburn is for eliminating them.

*****
Inhofe claims eliminating earmarks will not save taxpayers money and that part of the responsibility of being a member of Congress is to ‘bring home the bacon.’ In an editorial that appeared in several publications, Senator Jim Inhofe wrote, “a ban on earmarks doesn’t save one dime. It does, however, do three things: (1) It trashes the Constitution and violates our oath of office; (2) It cedes Congress’s power to authorize and appropriate to the president, and (3) It gives cover to big spending. It is hard to imagine that our founders were misguided when they gave Congress, those closest to the will of the people, the power of the purse under Article 1 of the Constitution. “ Inhofe has also widely distributed his argument to keep earmarks to Tea Party activists across the country. The RNC has a video on their website of an interview with Senator Inhofe. It is worth watching. Access it at http://rncnyc2004.blogspot.com/2010/11/james-inhofe-about-earmarks-video.html

*****
Senator Tom Coburn, on the other hand, wrote an op-ed for National Review that said, “I would encourage my colleagues to consider four myths and four realities of the debate on earmarks. The four myths are, (1) Eliminating earmarks does not actually save any money, (2) Earmarks represent a very tiny portion of the federal budget and eliminating them would do little to reduce the deficit, (3) Earmarking is about whose discretion it is to make spending decisions. Do elected members of Congress decide how taxes are spent, or do unelected bureaucrats and Obama administration officials? (4) The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility and authority to earmark. “

*****

Coburn said the four realities of earmarks are (1) They are a major distraction, (2) The debate is over in the US House and with the American People concerning earmarks. It’s clear they want them eliminated from the budget process, (3) Earmarks are bad public policy, and (4) Earmarks are bad politics. You can read Coburn's entire article at http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253028/earmark-myths-and-realities-sen-tom-coburn

*****
Both of Oklahoma’s US Senators are conservatives and are honorable men, but this issue must be weighed against the U.S Constitution, not tradition, personal preference or perceived efficiencies. Are earmarks constitutional as Senator Inhofe claims or are they a 'distraction' as Senator Coburn claims?

*****
Earmarking is not a new concept and it was something the founders faced. According to Americans for Prosperity, the idea of funneling federal funds to specific local projects (earmarks) started with Congressman John C. Calhoun. He proposed the Bonus Bill of 1817 to construct highways linking the East and South of the United States to its Western frontier (referred to as “internal improvements”). Calhoun wanted to use the earnings bonus from the Second Bank of the United States specifically for this program, arguing that the General Welfare and Post Roads clauses of the United States Constitution allowed for it.

*****
President James Madison vetoed Calhoun’s bill as unconstitutional. In his veto message Madison said, “Having considered the bill, I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling this bill with the Constitution of the United States. The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified in the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers. “

*****

If Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution, believed earmarks were not granted to Members of Congress in the Constitution, then it doesn’t seem very likely earmarks are constitutional.

*****

Congress should ban earmarks. Earmarks are nothing more than ‘re-election’ tokens being spent at taxpayer expense to insure loyalty to an elected official. If a particular project is worthy of funding, let it go through the traditional appropriations process.

Representative David Dank, (R-OKC) wrote an excellent guest editorial in The Oklahoman on Monday. Fellow blogger Mike McCarville has posted it in its entirety. You can access it at
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/