In the 2009 federal budget, Congress doled out about $18 billion in earmarks — those pet projects that often sound like a ridiculous waste of money because … they are.
Most people heard about the $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa and the $6.6 million for New Orleans to study termites.
But these days we’re hearing more about something more serious: the PMA Group.
PMA was a high-flying Washington lobbying firm that specialized in helping clients snag earmarks. They were very good at it, thanks partly to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the powerful chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
Murtha shoveled millions in earmarks to PMA clients. And PMA and its employees and clients shoveled thousands back to Murtha in campaign contributions.
Now the Justice Department is investigating whether any of PMA’s dealings were illegal.
Murtha hasn’t been charged with any crime, and this isn’t just about him anyway. Last year, 104 members of Congress secured earmarks for PMA clients, according to Congressional Quarterly. Those members have accepted $1.8 million in campaign contributions from PMA’s political action committee and employees of the firm since 2001, CQ reported.
PMA was raided by the FBI last fall and has since been dissolved. Murtha & Friends are on the defensive. Another PMA benefactor, Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.), and his departing chief of staff have been subpoenaed for documents as part of the investigation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s response? Hey, there’s no problem here.
She has blocked repeated efforts by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to start a House ethics probe into the PMA mess. Could you guess that Pelosi is a close ally of Murtha?
Pelosi apparently means to protect the whole sleazy earmarks business. That suggests she learned very little about why voters cast aside House Republican leadership and put her and the Democrats in charge.
Congress can’t “reform” the earmark process. Congress needs to kill it. To review:
*It’s a corrupting process that endows lawmakers with too much power to fund pet projects, steering clear of competitive bidding and regular budget oversight. (See: Abramoff, Jack, the 2005 earmarks-related scandal that brought down a Republican congressman, two other high-ranking federal officials and contributed to the Republicans’ loss of the U.S. House.)
*Earmarks invite abuse. Congress spends money because, well, because it can. (See: Nowhere, Bridge to.)
*And waste. Try $2.1 million to study grape genetics in New York, $1.7 million to study honeybees in Texas, $1 million to kill so-called Mormon crickets in Utah, $207,000 for a tattoo removal program in Los Angeles and $143,000 for an online encyclopedia in Nevada.
After the Abramoff scandal, House Democrats clamored into office on a promise to end the culture of corruption in Washington. They did make the earmarks process more transparent, requiring that members be identified with their earmarks. This year, there’s a proposal to ban lawmakers from taking contributions from companies for which they’ve requested earmarks.
But that’s just nibbling at the edges. The best way to end these scandals: End earmarks.
