Washblog

Murray Secures Critical Funding for Southwest Washington Priorities in Omnibus Conference Report

Arthur
You sure you ain't staking too much on yer theories? Not enough common sense?

by Arthur Ruger on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:54:01 AM PST

---

The Seattle Times has had a couple stories on Murray-sponsored pork. However, I wouldn't take the newspaper's word for it. Here is a quote from National Journal on Murray's widely publicized view on pork:

Murray is an unabashed defender of Congress's power of the purse, which has earned her kudos from appropriators but enmity from earmark foes such as Coburn. In October 2005, Murray took to the floor not only to defend her own $500,000 Seattle sculpture garden project from Coburn's attacks but also the infamous $223 million "Bridge to Nowhere" backed by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska -- the former Appropriations chairman with whom she often works on issues important to the Pacific Northwest. "I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next," Murray said.

If it's true that Murray has defended the "Bridge to Nowhere" earmark, then there is really something wrong with our senior Senator.

Here is what The New York Times reported on that same subject:

"What is good for the goose is good for the gander," Senator Patty Murray, the Washington Democrat who is set to become chairwoman of the transportation subcommittee, said last fall in a speech defending an Alaska Republican's allocation of more than $200 million in federal money for a bridge to remote Gravina, Alaska, with a population of 50. It became notorious as the "Bridge to Nowhere."

"I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next," Ms. Murray warned. To anyone who might vote against the bridge, Ms. Murray threatened that her subcommittee would be "taking a long, serious look at their projects." Every Democrat on the Appropriations Committee voted against an amendment to strike the bridge, and after threats from Ms. Murray and Mr. Stevens, only 15 senators voted for the amendment. The bridge's future is unclear.

I don't see why I, as a taxpayer, should have to help pay for Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere," and I don't think Alaskan taxpayers should have to pay for Murray's sculpture garden or Clinton's Woodstock museum. I appreciate Obama's stated desire to change the political culture in Washington D.C., but I'm skeptical that our long tradition of pork-barrel projects is going away anytime soon.

If we want change in D.C., then many more people will have to be civically engaged, and they'll have to force change on an entrenched power structure. In the meantime, we're stuck with Patty Murray, who is not, as far as I'm concerned, "one of us."

by DWE on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:05:03 PM PST

---

...there are limits.

Because we are a large and diverse country, states and regions have competing, non-overlapping economic interests. Thus, for example, spending federal taz dollars to save Pacific salmon is not a top priority for the many, many states that don't even have salmon. And yet it's important that the federal government be open to projects that are regionally specific but where the projects - and the system that allows such projects to be funded - is beneficial to the nation as a whole.

Thus, politicians engage in horse-trading to get local projects funded. And this is a good thing.

What is not a good thing is when these projects don't even really benefit the local economy. By that I mean that there must be benefit not only in the funding of a project, but also in the goods and services funded.

The Microvision helmet-worn, heads-up display that was used as an example on Bill Moyers' Journal is a case where not only was the product not really wanted by the military, but even if the Army did want it, they had found another unit to be superior. So the displays funded were simply put in a warehouse.

And in that case, the fact of simultaneous contributions by Microvision employees to Patty Murray's campaign made a waste of taxpayer money look like it has happened in return for what might be something like a bribe.

Instead of creating a message that benefits the Democratic party by relentlessly mocking the Republicans for the FACT that their insane level of corrupt spending belies every bit of their "fiscal discipline" rhetoric - that everything they say about economics is so much nonsense - Senator Murray chose simply to jump on their bandwagon in a second-rate, half-assed sort of way.

The benefit of her pork-barreling is trivial compared to the damage it does politically. She traded a small amount of short-term benefit to her campaign and a few constituents for a large amount of damage to her party and the people of Washington state and America.

When Senator Cantwell refused to oppose the Iraq war, ignoring ethics, politics and the vast majority of her voters, she hurt Darcy Burner's message and party unity. Now, when Burner would otherwise have a perfect chance to explain to the voters of Washington that Republicans are THE BIGGEST, most corrupt spenders who lie about their "principles, and only refuse to spend when it might help Democrats, Dave Reichert will be able to point to Senator Murray's ranking as #7 Earmarker in the U.S. Senate.

The law of the jungle is "eat or be eaten". The law of politics is "define or be defined". With her reckless approach to earmarking, Senator Murray has helped the Republicans define Washington state Democrats as pork-barrel spenders. That is not true, but it has hurt the party. It will take work to overcome and it will mean that our federal representatives will have less ability to bring home needed tax dollars for good and beneficial projects.

by dlaw on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:58:50 AM PST

---