It's been an interesting two days for those who enjoy watching federal politics in Minnesota's First Congressional District.
The most fascinating development has been the response to Congressman Walz's virtual hearing on the 99 earmark proposals he's taken in for review. A cross-partisan site, Techpresident, reports in Minnesota's First District Has a Homework Assignment: Judging Earmarks:
. . .Walz is putting a little bit of that creativity and collaborative thinking to work on Capitol Hill. Last Friday, Walz, who represents Minnesota's 1st District as a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, posted online the 98 different applications for earmarks received by his office.
For one week, he's asking the people of his district to help him vet the applications, running the gamut from a "new aerial port facility" for the 934th Airlift Wing, worth $7.7 million, to half a million dollars for dental care for the underserved and uninsured people of southern Minnesota. He's asking that they judge the projects based on accountability, impact, and the level of public support they would receive.
"We cannot fund all of these projects," reads a Walz press release, "so I am counting on southern Minnesotans to take some ownership of the important decisions I will soon be making on their behalf." . . .
The official comment period closed at 5 p.m. today, though responses can still be submitted. However, late reactions have no guarantee of being read. From the sounds of news reports, Walz and his staff will have a lot of reading to do. The Winona Daily News reports in Walz listening on earmark requests:
One of Congress' most vocal proponents of transparency in the earmark process, Walz invited residents to submit online comments at walz.house.gov on the proposed earmarks in what he called a "virtual hearing." He had received more than 700 responses as of 4 p.m. Wednesday, Severs said, and comments submitted through 5 p.m. today will be considered as Walz determines which projects to submit to the appropriations committee.
The congressman submitted 44 projects from his district last year, and his selections this year will be posted March 19 on his Web site.
"He is looking for projects whose requesters share his commitment to transparency and accountability," Severs said.
The Rochester Post Bulletin noted Tuesday in Deadline near to comment on federal appropriations:
Now's the time to sound off about which projects deserve federal funding in southeast Minnesota.
Rep. Tim Walz is soliciting public comments through his Web site, where he has listed 99 projects sent to him with funding requests.
Projects range from a $198 million project to replace the Interstate 90 bridge over the Mississippi River to a $600,000 funding request to launch a municipal pet-licensing program.
So far, more than 500 comments have poured in to Walz's office. The deadline is 5 p.m. Thursday.
The congressional office will continue to accept comments past the deadline, but can't guarantee Walz will read them before a March 19 deadline to submit a project list to the House Appropriations Committee.
It's the first year Walz's office has conducted appropriations in this "transparent" fashion, said an office spokeswoman.
"As far as we know, we're the only member of Congress to be doing this," said spokeswoman Sara Severs.
The Post Bulletin article reports that the Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce urged its members to comment:
The Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce sent an electronic message to members on Tuesday asking them to send Walz their comments supporting five requests in particular.
Those included a $2 million request to help build a Rochester railroad bypass; $2 million to help build a high-speed rail route to the Twin Cities; $15 million to build a U.S. 52 interchange at 65th Street in Rochester; $5 million to help build a U.S. 52 interchange near the proposed Elk Run biobusiness park; and $7 million to extend 55th Street in rural north Rochester.
Not every group in the area supports the railroad bypass; I'm an active member of the Minnesota Farmers Union, which opposes the project because county locals in the area have come out against the RACC-promoted concept. Walz will likely be reading comments from both sides. (I'm also not a fan of Winona's PRT proposal, for reasons pointed out on this blog).
Yesterday, KEYC-TV reported in City Of Fairmont Works To Persuade Cong. Walz To Give Them Funding:
When Fairmont's new water treatment facility opens in 2012, residents could be paying twice as much as they did in 2008.To keep the costs lower, the city has applied for federal funding to pay for half of the cost.News 12's Erick Lind tells us that the city is now asking for as many people to show the plant is worthy of Washington's help.Fairmont knows the water treatment facility needs to be replaced.The plant has stood for over 80 years and is scheduled for an update in 2012.
But it's a 30 million dollar update.The city requested 15 million dollars of federal funding from Congressman Tim Walz.Now city leaders are hoping for more voices to help the Congressman decide.
Fairmont Public Works Director Troy Nemmers says, "He's put together this virtual meeting on his website for the public to provide comments on all the applications he's received. Then he takes that information into consideration when he's selecting the projects he want to request federal dollars for."
Nemmers says that any citizen can go online to ask for the funding for the new plant.
Business leaders in the community have already done that.Fairmont Chamber of Commerce President Bob Wallace says, "We've got quite a few responses out of the business community because they really how important this is, and how much this impacts us and the community, and we'd like to reach the general populace too."
Wallace says the federal help won't just keep taxes lower.He says with so many in the city relying on water, keeping the water costs lower can keep businesses coming to town.
But, Nemmers knows Fairmont's project is one of 99 applications that Congressman Walz is considering for funding.He just hopes it will help Walz's decision if enough constituents voice the need.Nemmers says, "We ask everybody to get out and provide some comment on the project. The more the better."
Then citizens may have a better chance of upgrading their water without downgrading their wallets.In Fairmont, Erick Lind, News 12.
The virtual meeting has been running since the end of last week and will close Thursday afternoon at 5.
The response by Walz's Republican challengers to the issue of earmarks has been predictably confused.
Jim Engstand, for instance, tells potential contributors that Walz is responsible for EPA regulations that required the City of Goodview to upgrade its water treatment plan. In fact, Walz, Senator Klobuchar and former Senator Coleman had worked to secure federal funds for the project, though they weren't forthcoming. In February, the Winona Daily News editorial board noted that Walz took responsibility for the funding delay while continuing to seek funding for the project. The city's request is among the 99 proposals for which Walz sought comment. Engstrand, Quist and Hagedorn's solution? Refuse to request any earmarks for any project. That will solve problems like those facing Goodview.
Clown car update: right-wing Republicans rip Representative Demmer as RINO from the rear, an earlier Bluestem post in part about an Engstrand supporter scolding Randy Demmer for supporting earmarks drawn a couple of queries in which Republicans suggested that congressional budget request can only be considered earmarks if they're anonymous. As Earmarks and Earmarking: Frequently Asked Questions, the Taxpayers for Common Sense primer on earmarks notes, anonymity was certainly the norm prior to transparency reforms in 2007, but House rules now require:
Earmarks and the threat they pose as an element of pay-to-play corruption in Washington helped fuel public discontent with Congress leading up to the 2006 elections.3 At the beginning of the 110th Congress in January 2007, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to make members stand by their earmarks, disclosing sponsors' names next to the projects they requested in legislation. The Senate eventually followed suit, voting to adopt a similar rule.
For the first time lawmakers were forced to stand up and tell taxpayers what earmarks they requested. They couldn’t cherry-pick a few projects, only post the information they decided to share on their websites, or only release the information to the local media. Someone in St. Louis, MO could look up what the lawmaker from Bay St. Louis, MS got. This was a real and critical first step.
In the 111th Congress, additional reforms were put in place: lawmakers in both the House and Senate are now required to disclose on their official website what earmarks they are asking for, not just what they receive in the process. That is a key piece of information for constituents. Now, rather than simply knowing which earmarks were obtained by each member of Congress, taxpayers can see all of the earmarks a member requested from the Appropriations Committee (whether they are eventually awarded or not). Taxpayers for Common Sense has compiled these requests from each Member’s website; you can see our database of these request disclosure pages here.
In addition, taxpayers can see the actual official letter of request a House member submits when seeking an earmark. These are available from the individual Appropriations subcommittee websites under “Earmark Certification Letters.” The Senate does not provide taxpayers such a letter.
Whatever Walz's earmarks are, they're certainly not anonymous. Indeed, citizens in the First have been able to view and comment on all earmarks Walz will potentially be submitting to Congress next week. The list of 99 will be winnowed down; in this budget climate, it's uncertain which of the remainder will receive funding.
Allen Quist issued a press release about Walz's process that would make a cat laugh. In part:
Quist says that earmarks are an abuse of the legislative process because they spend taxpayer money without taxpayers having a genuine say on how that money is spent. “There are no open public hearings on earmarks,” Quist said.
Quist said he is outraged by Congressman Tim Walz’s encouragement of citizens and other groups to bring him earmark requests. “This comes about as close to buying votes as you can get,” Quist stated.
So taking requests for funding from the Minnesota National Guard, the Cities of Fairmont and Goodview and other state and local government is "buying votes." One friend wondered which of the children served by the training at the National Child Protection Training Center have votes for sale. Rather, Quist is mashing up real controversies over "pay for play" schemes wherein for-profit companies receive earmarked funds with an honest effort at transparency.
Perhaps Mr. Quist opposes all congressional powers of allocation and wishes remote bureaucrats in Washington to make all decisions about federal funding. Should Quist serve as representative, should southern Minnesotans expect to have no right to know what their representative is up to as the Nicollet farmer protects them from having their votes purchased? Should spending decisions by federal bureaucrats be equally shrouded in secrecy in order to preserve the purity of First District voters?Quist's unique approach to transparency might completely revolutionize the meaning of the phrase, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
One wonders how those hundreds of citizens and news outlets learned about the online hearing. If his press release is any indication, Quist seems to have missed it.
Long opposed to the practice, Walz has never submitted earmarks for for-profit companies, and in a recent press release, applauded the House's decision to ban earmarks to such companies. (Republican House leadership today urged members to adopt a one-year moratorium on all requests; in the Senate, neither caucus's leadership is having anything much to do with earmark reform).
Personally, I'd like to see more reform of the earmark process, and agree with many of the recommendations made here in the Taxpayers for Common Sense Fiscal Year 2010 earmark analysis. I agree with the following recommendations excerpted from the analysis:
1. Reduce the number and cost of earmarks and the types of projects eligible for earmark funding.
- Ban earmarks for private or for-profit entities. (done in the House)
- Establish earmark “term limits” – no project should be funded year after year through legislative earmarks.
2. Improve existing mechanisms for making the earmark system more transparent and accountable.
- One stop shopping: Centralize disclosure of all earmarks request and awards and provide data in a common format that can be downloaded, searched, and sorted. It is also critical that any user can tell the difference between requests submitted for consideration by members and those that actually end up as earmarks.
- Provide amplifying budgetary information on congressional earmarks, similar to what is provided with the President’s budget, including historical funding levels, economic analysis and justification, and descriptive information.
- Make all legislation (including earmarks) available for public review at least 72 hours in advance of floor consideration.
- Create viable enforcement mechanisms that enable members and the public to challenge compliance.
I think that it might be possible to create a "tagging" system in which citizens can track earmarks such as those which Walz will be selecting after reviewing citizens' comments. Such a system of standardized tags could help create a system in which those tracking bill would be alerted when an earmark moves to the next step in the system. Not a programmer myself, but there's no shortage of talented techies.
I'd also like to see a contribution ban from PACs related to organizations receiving earmarks.
What is the best balance between local people's understand of their needs and merit-based divvying out of federal dollars for worthy projects? Which projects merit spending taxpayers' dollars and which should be cut back? Transparency provides one key (though not the only key), and I hope southern Minnesota residents have looked carefully at the proposals Walz offered for their scrutiny.
Images: TechPresident's screenshot of earmark proposals submitted to his office and open for public review (top); a feline response to an Allen Quist press release (bottom).
I wrote to support funding for HWY 14 from Dodge Center to Owatonna. That stretch of road is so dangerous.
Posted by: Cursedthing | Mar 11, 2010 at 09:36 PM