I received this release a couple days ago from U.S. Senate candidate Eric Wargotz. While he uses it to hammer his opponent, the longtime entrenched Democrat Senator Barbara Mikulski, there’s more to the Sun story by Paul West that Eric cites.
“The Baltimore Sun reported that Maryland’s senior U. S. senator won $10.5 million in federal pork barrel spending for three of her most generous campaign contributors.
“During a time of budgetary crisis in Washington, it is irresponsible for Senator Mikulski to use her powerful position on the Senate Appropriations Committee to enrich her campaign supporters. Further, I find it appalling that she would hide behind the troops to justify her actions.
“The Pentagon didn’t ask for any of the funding requests (totaling $42.1 million, including the $10.5 million already referenced) the senator received. If Senator Mikulski thinks she knows better than the military does, she owes it to her constituents to explain why.
“Senator Mikulski should eschew the politics of the past and devote her energies towards participating in the healthcare debate raging on Capitol Hill. Despite more than three decades of involvement in this issue, she has been oddly absent now that the debate is here.
“Maryland’s taxpayers deserve Senator Mikulski’s advocacy more than her campaign contributors do.”
In looking at the Sun story, it’s apparent that not just Mikulski shared in the Maryland goodie distribution, and it was as bipartisan as it could be considering our Congressional delegation has just one Republican.
I’ll admit it’s good that Dr. Wargotz pointed this out, particularly since these projects went to companies who invested heavily in Mikulski’s election, but then the question will arise as to whether he won’t be equally as guilty if elected. While earmarks truly aren’t a large part of the overall budget, they make for feel-good press when the incumbent comes back hat in hand for votes at election time.
Unfortunately, neither party has made much of an effort to combat the practice and it’s noteworthy that President Obama, who claimed to be opposed to earmarks throughout his Presidential campaign (as did John McCain, who is quoted in the Sun story) hasn’t vetoed any spending package laden with earmarks. So to me this is business as usual.
While a number of critics wish to pinch off the campaign finance end of the equation, my better idea is to reduce the incentive for companies to shop for candidates willing to shovel lucrative government contracts their way by cutting the size and scope of the federal government. Perhaps this won’t work quite as well in the defense sector as others, but the first step is turning around the runaway train called federal spending run amok.
Where to you draw the line between an earmark and a representative going to Washington and getting something done for his or her district?
Michael,you seem to like to whack this guy when he makes good if not great points. If you are going to be biased then openly state that you just don’t like or support a candidate. This guy has something to say…apparently the others don’t. You should be whacking that silence. Obviously, Wargotz is against earmarks, particularly rewarding contributors. Elect him and then you will find out how he (or any other behaves). The statement you make in that regard is ridiculous. Your critiques have been less reflective of inadequacies of approach or analysis by the candidate and appear to be based more in some apparent bias. Nutt
Admittedly, I get more press items from Wargotz than I do Rutledge or McAndrew (or Barb Mikulski for that matter). But my philosophy is one of limited government and, while this pork is a small drop in the bucket, it seemingly is only placed in to buy the incumbents some votes at election time.
To answer the PD comment, I happen to believe that policies which encourage job creation (lower taxes, fewer regulations, and allowing states more leeway in governing themselves) would do more for a Congressional district than shifting money to a particular company which may or may not have donated thousands of dollars to a Congressman’s campaign coffers. If you’ll notice, none of the three companies cited in the Sun article are on the Eastern Shore, so what tangible benefit do we get from these dollars? Roscoe Bartlett’s earmark cited was for a company out of Los Angeles!
In a way, this is only picking the low-hanging fruit and I know ragging on earmarks can be a case of penny wise and pound foolish given the real problem in entitlement spending. I guess where Wargotz missed me a little was pointing out the issue but not continuing on to posit a solution.
Seeing Mikulski’s record, please keep her away from the health care debate! It’s bad enough she’s a lead-pipe cinch to vote in favor of whatever socialized health care bill is placed before her.
Good points to be sure but frankly, identifying snd acknowledging problems is the first step. Rewarding contributors with earmarks when the Pentagon hasn’t even requested the dollars/items is an outrage. I thank Wargotz for voicing an opinion and highlighting the article. Call me dumb but I think what you posted was from a “release” as you say, not an expose’ on the fundamental issues with earmarks and pork-barrel spending” and proposed solutions. Of course, one solution is to follow the Constitution. Nutt
Admittedly, a press release has a different purpose than the blog posts I do since Eric is looking for maximum name recognition at minimum cost – I just use them as fodder for the points I wish to make.
It’s sort of a slippery slope because almost any spending for a particular purpose can be called pork or buying votes in someone’s eyes.
Michael, I may be “green around the gills’ so to speak – but I didn’t think a press release on this topic would have been a good thing in my case.
For myself, I would prefer more clarity on the earmark issue – particularly within Congress and most certainly demonstrating the needed transparency we have been promised. Some of it may be there (online) but just not enough and certainly not timely.
As anyone who may have read through my site, you likely know that I work at one of those defense firms. I was just as surprised as anyone to read the Sun article listing the monies contributed to Mikulski for her clear efforts to help those select companies within Maryland. Don’t know how to justify that.
One thought, with the thousands employed by those firms (collectively) one could point out that her efforts helps to keep all those employees working. But not all of them are her constituents. Some percentage live out of state. Some of whom I know personally.
Which also points out the overall hypocrisy of Mikulski, clearly favoring certain “pockets” within her state to garner the best political advantage.
I hear folks in Garrett County, and other areas, tell me that Mikulski doesn’t even visit. (Of course with a mending foot, how could she? But then I mean in all her years in that seat.)
Bottom line. She hasn’t really focused on truly helping the people who need it most. She fails at social improvements for minorities. There isn’t real progress there.
But she knows that she gain regain her seat with all those government workers throughout Prince George’s. Howard, Montgomery, Baltimore counties and Baltimore City that will vote for her.
Seems we need a secret weapon.
P.S. I have Babs on video saying she is definitely for the single-payer option.
In case you didn’t already know that.