|
 Ignoring
a History of Pork and Earmarks
Reconstructing Murtha II...
[Noel Sheppard] 12/5/05
Any cosmetician
worth her salt will tell you that the most important step in
a quality makeover is to apply a first-rate foundation. In
the case of the character reconstruction that has been expertly
crafted on John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) the past five days,
it appears the foundation was a complete avoidance of his history
as one of Congress’ most renowned pork-barrel spenders.
To be more
precise, the recent left-wing love affair with Mr. Murtha totally
ignores past depictions of him as being “a leading pork-barrel
politician” who is often in the middle of a great deal
of questionable spending related to defense contracts.
Contributor
Noel Sheppard
Noel
Sheppard is an economist, business owner and contributing
writer for the Free Market Project. He is also member
of the Media
Research Center's NewsBusters squad. Noel welcomes
your feedback at nsheppard@costlogic.com [Sheppard index] |
A LexisNexis
search identified that many of the headlines Murtha made
in the ’90s were specifically connected to
projects that he pushed through the House that largely benefited
his home district in the state of Pennsylvania. In fact, his “earmarking” was
so legendary that Roll Call’s Mary Jacoby stated in
a February 24, 1994 article that it might have prevented
him
from becoming the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations:
“Rep.
John Murtha's (D-Pa) well-known ability to channel federal
dollars
to his southwestern Pennsylvania district has
made him a hero at home but, ironically, is one factor keeping
him out of the quiet race to succeed ailing Appropriations
Chairman Bill Natcher (D-Ky), according to House sources.
“Of the approximately $4 billion in ‘directed
spending’ contained in the $240 billion fiscal 1994 defense
appropriations bill, more than $110 million is earmarked for
projects in Murtha's district.
“As
a result, Members and top aides say, there is a feeling that
an institution
already suffering a public relations
problem can not afford an Appropriations chairman portrayed
by the press - fairly or not - as a leading pork-barrel politician.”
What were some of the earmarks identified by Jacoby?
“As
chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee,
Murtha
last year helped produce a $240 billion spending bill
that included $113 million for projects in his hometown of
Johnstown.”
And:
“A
US News and World Report article this month detailed Murtha's
earmarking
of funds for a college headed by his cousin.
But Murtha's handiwork is, of course, more extensive.
“The
fiscal 1994 defense appropriations conference report, for
example,
contains $103 million in projects directly benefiting
a non-profit research company in Murtha's hometown of Johnstown,
Pa.
“That
company, Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), is a
subsidiary
of the University of Pittsburgh Trust and operates
three technology centers and a computer project for the Defense
Department.
“Those
CTC earmarks include: $30 million for the National Defense
Center
for Environmental Excellence, $40 million for
the National Center for Excellence in Manufacturing Technology,
$10 million for the National Applied Software Engineering Center,
and $23 million for the Computer-Aided Acquisition and Logistics
Support (CALS) Shared Resource Center (SRC).”
But that’s not the end of the story. A few months later,
as a result of all this earmarking, a fellow Democrat in the
House, George Brown (D-Cal), threatened Murtha with a possible
subpoena to compel him to release detailed information surrounding
his committee’s activities. Roll Call’s Mary Jacoby
reported on April 21, 1994:
“Speaker
Tom Foley (D-Wash) yesterday intervened in a feud between
Reps.
George Brown (D-Calif) and John Murtha
(D-Pa) over Defense Department release of documents detailing
Congressional earmarks, saying he will try to resolve the issue
in Brown's favor before the dispute escalates.
“Brown, chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee, is on a self-described "crusade" against
so-called academic earmarks. Those earmarks direct federal
money to specific universities or other institutions for civilian
research, bypassing the normal competitive peer review process.
“Murtha,
as chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, plays
a major role in establishing the earmarks Brown opposes
by allowing defense research and development accounts to fund
civilian projects.”
It turns out that Foley had to intervene again a few weeks
later to prevent this from turning into a full-blown Congressional
scandal. States News Service reported on May 10, 1994:
“Attempts
by several powerful Pennsylvania congressmen to block the
release of details of how billions of dollars
worth of earmarked projects are spent, have ended in failure.
“Overruling
the objections of Reps. Robert S. Walker, R-16; John Murtha,
D-12, and Joseph McDade, R-10, House Speaker
Thomas Foley, D-Wash., has asked the Department of Defense
to release documents on military-funded projects that benefit
specific interests or congressional districts.”
Yet, 1994
wasn’t
the only time that Murtha was accused of pork-barrel spending.
The Washington Post published the
following on August 12, 1989:
“The infighting over Maxi Cube represents a variation
on the usual ‘pork barrel’ politics in which well-placed
legislators reward home states and congressional districts
with federal projects. The fiscal 1990 bill that passed the
House last week included many such examples, from mine sweepers
for Oregon to $ 10 million for Army mobile field kitchens,
an addition that may benefit a small business in Murtha's district.”
More recently, the Washington
Post published this on August
15, 1998:
“At
a time when the Pentagon is lamenting a lack of money for
key programs,
the annual defense appropriations bill
headed toward passage this fall contains an estimated $ 4 billion
in projects the military never asked for -- programs added
on by members of Congress seeking to steer military spending
to their home districts.”
Much of
this article focused on Murtha’s activities:
“In the House version of the fiscal 1999 defense appropriations
bill, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) has inserted $ 25 million
in funding for DRS Laurel Technologies in Johnstown, his hometown.
He inserted another $ 25 million or so in classified funds
for a Johnstown drug intelligence center and millions more
for a Johnstown research group studying ‘environmental
excellence’ and other issues.
“Murtha's
earmarks are part of the fine print of the $ 252 billion
defense appropriations bill and its accompanying
committee reports, which detail the spending.”
In fact,
the Post suggested that Murtha’s earmarks were
largely responsible for the success of this company:
“In six years, stoked by Murtha's clout as the ranking
Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee,
DRS Laurel's annual revenue has ballooned from $ 3 million
to $ 70 million and its work force has grown from 45 to 260.
Jack Donnelly, the president of DRS Laurel Technologies, credits
Murtha ‘100 percent for opening the door’ to lucrative
Pentagon business.”
One of the key conclusions of this 1,590 word front-page story:
“Like
some of his colleagues, Murtha demonstrates his effectiveness
in press releases touting new money for local
enterprises. And the publicity helps come election time. A
power in military spending, Murtha garners his largest chunk
of campaign donations from the defense industry, according
to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.”
What is
truly fascinating about all this is that the picture the
left and their media
minions have painted of Rep. Murtha
since his call to withdraw American troops from Iraq suggests
an almost saintly quality. For instance, on Friday, House minority
leader Nancy Pelosi referred to Murtha as “One of the
most distinguished Members to ever serve in the House of Representatives.”
One has to wonder how all this earmarking makes a person so
distinguished, especially in an era of exploding budget deficits.-one-
copyright
2005 Noel Sheppard
|
