United States Senator Tom Coburn United States Senator Tom Coburn
United States Senator Tom Coburn United States Senator Tom Coburn
Text Only version link Text Size label Default text size link Large text size link Extra-large text size link  
 
Waste of the DayEmail Dr. Coburn
Earmark Toolkit - Home

December 12, 2007

'Earmark' cash aids Dem freshmen


By Matt Kelley

USA Today


WASHINGTON — A year ago, Democrats won control of Congress in part by criticizing billions of dollars spent on pet projects. Now, freshmen Democrats are benefiting from the same kind of spending, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

All 49 of the new Democratic lawmakers sponsored or co-sponsored at least one project — known as an "earmark" — inserted into the House and Senate spending bills, the analysis found. Freshmen Democrats were the sole sponsors on projects worth $351 million, an average of $7.6 million. Republicans got approval for projects worth $65 million, or $5 million each.

The analysis found that some of the most vulnerable freshmen Democrats in next year's election were among those who got the most money: Eight of the top 10 House freshmen earmark sponsors defeated Republican incumbents, and five won in districts carried by President Bush in 2004.

Click here to read the rest of the story.





November 9, 2007

Q&A; With Sen. Tom Coburn, the Earmark Foe

‘The culture [of Congress] is the thing that limits it from doing what is best.'


By Danielle Knight

U.S. News & World Report


As the Senate hammers out next year's spending bills, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is on high alert. The physician turned lawmaker has become known on Capitol Hill as the chief fiscal whistleblower, irritating Republicans and Democrats alike when he holds up bills he deems wasteful. Several weeks ago, he embarrassed Democrats by removing a $1 million spending earmark from the Labor appropriations bill that would have gone to a performing arts center in New York that included a tribute to the 1969 Woodstock festival.

The senator recently spoke in his office about why he's so fired up against pork barrel spending.

How did you become the spokesperson against earmarks?

Earmarks is the symptom of the disease. What's the disease? The disease is a comparison of us versus what's best for our country. When I ran, what I said is that the biggest problem in our country was the culture of Congress because the culture is the thing that limits the Congress from doing what is best in the long term for the country.

The people up here are good people. But they are human, and their desire for themselves oftentimes gets in the way of the desire for the best interest of the country. Earmarks cause us to think short term about, "How do I satisfy the desires of people from my state?"... Earmarks really aren't about helping your state. They're really about helping you look good in your state. And if it is about helping you look good in your state, then it is about you, which means it's about your next election, not what's in the best long-term interest of the country.

How did this become your bailiwick?

(Coburn points to a photo of his four grandchildren.) My grandkids. Don't we all want them to have the same opportunities or better to advance themselves, live free, be personally responsible, and take advantage of this greatest economic experiment and greatest experiment of freedom that's ever been? Don't we want that to continue?

We're walking on a ledge. We're letting the political dynamic of partisanship and parochialism undermine the future of our country. The dollar fell to its lowest level today again. The index was down again. Why is the euro worth $1.42 now? Does it have anything to do with people thinking that perhaps we can't repay our debts and maybe we're living beyond our means?

What I'm partisan for is the next generation, and we're really loading them [down with debt]. We're loading them to such an extent that most of them probably won't own a home, won't get a college education, because they will be carrying just the interest on our debt. When you start looking, even with a growth rate of 4 or 5 percent, we can't grow out of the problem. So we aren't ever going to be trusted to fix those big problems until the American people have confidence that we're doing with the discretionary budget what we should be doing.

I don't have a sophisticated strategy other than, "Here's what I believe." And I'm not worried about losing friends to get there because our country is worth more than that. Our future is worth more than that.

Do you think this has hurt you politically? Sen . Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, was quite annoyed about you going after that bridge in Alaska earmark.

It already has. If I had an idea for an amendment today, I'd try not to run it. I'd try to give it to someone else because if it had my name on it is automatically going to get no votes from the appropriators. That may be a little bit harsh. It's probably not that bad. But there's no question that I'm an irritant. I understand that. But this body needs an irritant. It needs us to focus on the long run. It needs us to focus on the next generation.

But I'm not discourteous. And I'm consistent. They know I'll be out there and I'm not partisan when I attack somebody and I really am thinking about the future. So, it's kind of like Phil Gramm said, I didn't come here expecting to find a lot of friends, and I have not been disappointed.

Barack Obama said recently that if he were elected president you would be one of the people he would reach out to across the aisle. He called you a friend.

We met back in orientation.... We kind of hit it off...and I think he's a neat guy, a smart guy. I wish him the best. He actually believes in transparency in government and believes that we shouldn't waste money. Now, he'll spend a whole lot more than I ever would.

But lobbyists and interests from your state must come to you asking for you to secure funding for various museums, stadiums, etc.

They did the first three months. Here's what I asked them: "What program do you want to cut for us to do this?"

And they didn't have any answers?

No, they didn't. They just want more.

So they stopped coming?

They still come; they just stopped asking. They know that I'm not about to sponsor an earmark. I'll never sponsor an earmark.... If you start doing earmarks, what you do is not do the rest of your job and that's this: oversight. You hear all the appropriators say, "We can't just let the bureaucracy spend this money. We need to direct it." Well, what our Founders say is, "It's our responsibility to make sure the government is spending it the right way and hold them accountable when they make poor choices."... Earmarks take your focus off what your job is.

Do you think it's hurt you with constituents back home?

No, I get letters all the time that say: "I didn't vote for you. I voted for your opponent, but you're doing exactly what you said you'd do. I trust you now and I'll vote for you." That's Democrats and Republicans. I poll about equally in both parties right now. And that's in the mid to upper 60s....

So, for every Chamber of Commerce that's irritated because I won't direct a sewer system to them, I'll get 150 regular citizens who say, "We'll pay for our sewer system. You fix the rest of the problems so our kids are going to be OK."

I heard that you returned about $200,000 of unused Senate office funds.

It's about $350,000 now.

Where did you cut corners? I expected to come in here and find an understaffed office with paint peeling off the walls.

We get plenty of money. If I were a big state and had a whole lot of constituents to take care of, it might be different. But I have seven field representatives—we're in every town all the time.... I have a great staff. They do a super job. We're just efficient. I was a businessman before I was a doctor. I know how to run an organization.... I see when we spend money in our office, we're taking money away from the next generation. If I don't have to spend it, I won't.

What made you decide to get into politics back in 1994 when you ran for the House?

I was just irritated. I was just sick and tired of being sick and tired, like a lot of other people. I didn't really think I'd come back.

Earmarks wasn't your focus back then, though.

No, but spending was. Look, you can't do much about earmarks in the House. I did filibuster in the House for the first time in its history.

Some of your critics have portrayed you as crazy. The Daily Show mocked your presentation against embryonic stem cell research. The Wall Street Journal has called you Coburn the Barbarian. Does this ever get to you?

No.... If I see a bill that is wrong, I'm going to hold it, no matter what the political or press pressure is. Members up here run to the press to try and make me look bad, but what they've now figured out is that it doesn't work. I'm not moving. I don't care how many editorials are written. If I think I'm right, I'm not going to move until I get a bill fixed.

How many bills have you held up?

Well over 100. On the first of this year, I sent a letter to every member of the Senate that said, "I'm going to object to moving anything by unanimous consent if you are authorizing new spending without deauthorizing old spending."... The paradox in politics, I've found, is the more you stand on principle, the more criticism you get—but the more support you get from your constituency.

What do you make of all the spending on the war in Iraq?

We should be paying for it.... But the politicians here are not willing to cut expenses here in the country or raise taxes. I don't want us to raise taxes because I know how much waste we've got. But politicians here won't make the hard choices of cutting waste in this government to be able to pay for this war. What they do is just charge it to our grandkids. And that's what we're doing.

You're still a practicing physician?

I delivered a baby last weekend. A 9-pound, 13-ounce girl. I've delivered over 4,000 babies.

Is being a physician at all similar to being a senator?

It's a real advantage to being a physician up here because you're taught about how to read people through their body language. You read all the signs instead of what they say.

I've heard you prefer being called Doctor Coburn to Senator Coburn.

Oh, it doesn't matter to me. You call me to dinner and I'll come.





September 26, 2007

Independent Review Says Earmarks May Not Be Most Effective Use of Federal Funds


Dr. Coburn requested an independent review of congressional earmarks within the Department of Transportation (DOT) from the department’s inspector general.  Click here to read a summary of the IG report.

Among the findings: 

  • Earmarks in DOT have increased in number by 1,150 percent in 10 years (1996 – 2005), with the value of earmarks in the same timeframe jumping 314 percent. 
  • Ninety-nine percent of earmarks (7,724 out of 7,760) were not subject to the transportation agencies’ review and selection processes or bypassed the states’ normal planning and programming processes.
  • Earmarks may not be the most effective or efficient use of funds. The IG report identifies five ways in which earmarks impact programs in the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration, as follows (see pages 11 – 14 of the full report):
    • Earmarks can reduce funding for the states’ core transportation programs.
    • Earmarks do not always coincide with DOT strategic research goals.
    • Many low priority, earmarked projects are being funded over higher priority, non-earmarked projects.
    • Earmarks provide funds for projects that would otherwise be ineligible.
    • Earmarks can disrupt the agency’s ability to fund programs as designated when authorized funding amounts are exceeded by “overearmarking.”

Click here to read the full report titled, “Review of Congressional Earmarks within Department of Transportation Programs” which was completed September 7, 2007.





September 7, 2007

Inside The Hidden World Of Earmarks

A BusinessWeek investigation reveals how company spending on lobbyists can pay off


BusinessWeek


In March, 2004, not long after the U.S. Navy had shipped off its official budget request for the next fiscal year, Admiral Vernon E. Clark, then Chief of Naval Operations, went shopping for more. Spending limits had forced the Navy to cut back on plenty of goodies it wanted, including a top-of-the-line Gulfstream jet. So Clark, the Navy's top-ranking officer, signed off on another, far less formal budget request, this one listing many projects that hadn't been funded. Soon that list began circulating among defense industry lobbyists, including those working for Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. and its parent, General Dynamics Corp. (GD ). They hit the halls of Congress, and by the time the 2005 defense budget passed four months later, the Navy got its new Gulfstream, courtesy of a special funding request known as an earmark.

The Navy wasn't the only one happy with the behind-the-scenes deal. That one earmark alone was worth $53 million to Gulfstream, and it was just one of 29 earmarks valued at $169 million given to General Dynamics or its subsidiaries that year--quite a payout, especially considering that the company spent only $5.7 million on lobbying in 2004. Put another way, for every dollar it shelled out to lobbyists, it got almost $30 back in earmarks from Uncle Sam.

Click here to read the rest of the article





July 5, 2007

Office of Management and Budget earmark database


The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has launched an earmark database.

According to OMB, the earmark database was launched in response to President Bush's call to cut the number and cost of earmarks by at least half.

"To establish a benchmark for accurately measuring the President's goal, OMB requested agencies provide data on the earmarks for FY2005. The earmarks database establishes the needed benchmark and is consistent with the Administration's overall effort to encourage and inform the debate over how taxpayers' money is spent and what they get in return."





July 1, 2007

Earmark Toolkit


Cost of earmarks doubles
This chart indicates the cost of earmarks has doubled since 1994.

Dr. Coburn has established this site to empower voters to demand reforms that will place the future quality of life for the next generation above concerns about the next election.

How Congress Spends Your Money

Congress spends money by passing appropriations bills each year. There are 12 such bills in the Senate, each covering several federal agencies that are part of the regular process and subject to budgetary caps established by the annual congressional budget process. When Congress passes a budget resolution, it imposes a spending limit for what's called the "discretionary" part of the federal budget. That includes the part not spent on entitlement programs that Congress is not legally allowed to limit - such as Social Security and Medicare. Congressional leaders then assign certain spending caps to each of the 12 appropriations bills. It takes a supermajority of the Senate to override those caps.

Outside of this regular appropriations process is what's called "emergency supplemental" appropriations bills. Congress can pass an unlimited number of these each year, for the alleged purpose of quickly addressing unforeseen emergencies such as funding massive disaster relief or responding to a terror attack or act of war. In general, Congress tends to pass one or two of these each year. In recent years, they have been labeled as being for Katrina relief or for war funding. By continuing to pass supplemental "emergency" bills, even when the hurricane struck last year and the war is several years old, Congress gets away with placing all these expensive but necessary programs outside the usual budget disciplinary measures. Supplemental appropriations bills operate outside the budget - they have no caps and therefore no spending discipline is required.

That's why supplemental bills get turned into vehicles for every irresponsible spending whim of any member of Congress. They move quickly through the Congress, and they are seen as "must-pass" because no one wants to vote against the war or against Katrina relief. In some instances, nobody sees the bills until right before they are supposed to vote.

Earmarks Hidden in "Reports"

What's worse, appropriations bills move with a so-called "report" attached. In these reports, additional elaboration beyond the bill language is provided by the bill authors, and this language is seen as almost as binding as the bill language itself. Agencies ignore this "report language" at their peril. It is in these reports that most earmarks are hidden. The provisions get slipped into reports by the bill authors late at night, behind closed doors and nobody has a chance to vote on them individually. To make matters worse, these spending bills are often rammed through Congress before anybody has time to actually read them. Earmarks, however, aren't always in appropriations bills. Sometimes, they are stuffed into "authorization bills" like the highway bill - a bill passed by the Congress every few years to reauthorize transportation programs. Regardless of what bill they move in, earmarks are usually only discovered after they have become law.

So What Are Earmarks Anyway?

Earmarks are short provisions that direct funds to a specific project in a specific location. Their champions come to Washington, D.C., and lobby members of Congress to insert the earmark into an appropriations bill, which essentially provides the organization in question a check for a certain amount of money to do a specific type of project. For example, more than $250 million was earmarked to a so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska - to fund a long bridge to an island with 50 residents, where a 7-minute ferry already existed. Another example was a sculpture garden for several hundred thousand dollars in Seattle, Washington. Often, very little oversight occurs about whether the project was completed properly, on budget and on time. Earmarks are taken out of accounts that are supposed to fund broader programs that operate in a more competitive manner. For example, a grant program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that provides grants to communities for economic development projects is one of the worst-"raided" accounts for earmarks. This process leaves almost no money left in that account to fund the competitive grant program.

Perhaps the defining characteristic of earmarks, or "pork projects," is the fact individual members of Congress exercise sole funding and oversight authority over earmarked funds. In most cases, no competition occurs, no outcomes are demanded, and no accountability is provided for the taxpayers to ensure they got something of value for their money.

Motivations for Earmarking

Earmarks have grown over time. In the 1980s, President Reagan vetoed a spending bill because it had about 160 pork projects. Last year, more than 15,000 pork projects were passed by Congress. Earmarking is neither a time-honored tradition nor an honorable process. Earmarks serve a parochial interest at the local level - the very opposite of what federal programs are supposed to do. Members of Congress brag about the "pork" they bring home to their districts or states. In this way, the special interests in their districts who lobbied them for the project then praise the member and often campaign on his/her behalf. In other words, earmarking is inherently a political activity designed to keep incumbents in power and in the pocket of special interest groups in their home districts. There are only a handful of the 535 members of Congress who do not engage in earmarking. In the Senate, only three senators do not earmark. Dr. Coburn is one of them.

Leading the Charge Against Pork

Although some members defend the earmarking process as a legitimate use of power to serve their constituents, Dr. Coburn has led the fight against earmarking. He has vowed, along with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), to challenge every single earmark this year, even if it means bringing the entire appropriations process to a virtual standstill. Dr. Coburn believes earmarking is the "gateway drug" to spending addiction. Often, fiscally conservative members get bullied into voting for monstrously bad spending bills because they are threatened with losing earmarks they inserted if they vote against the bill. In order to protect their earmarks, they violate their broader principles on spending.
For more information about various amendments Dr. Coburn has offered to stop earmarks. In addition to his floor action, Dr. Coburn has held a variety of hearings in the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee. Dr. Coburn also convened a hearing specifically on earmarks for museums, zoos and other projects. These hearings provide a wealth of testimony, charts and other resources.

The Power of the People

Only an informed voting public can begin to demand reform to the earmarking process. Many members of Congress engage in earmarking because they mistakenly believe they need to earmark in order to protect their seats. Dr. Coburn hopes this toolkit will empower you to let your elected officials know that earmarking is damaging America now and endangering the long-term fiscal legacy for future generations of Americans.

 


 

Check out CongressDaily's coverage of earmarks on Capitol Hill.

Related Resources:

Press Releases:


News:


Other Resources:


Earmark News:


Editorials and Opinions:






Right Now! link
Oversight Action
Your Tax Dollars At Work
Subcommittee link
Stop Secret Spending
Health Care Reform
Pork Busters link
National Debt title
$9,695,768,507,380.00
$31,664.61 Per Citizen