Arlen Specter's Tangled Web of Pork
By Chuck Muth (02/26/06)
Hey, boys and girls. It's that time of year again when Uncle Sam dons the
red-suit-and-beard and hangs pork ornaments on the "Emergency Spending"
tree. If you're not quite familiar with this annual congressional festival,
let me share with you just one example from last year's taxpayer-funded
earmark orgy.
It all started when the president requested "emergency funding" to fight the
War on Terror. Now, you may be thinking to yourself that this war has been
going on for five years now and, therefore, the cost of fighting it should
already be known and funded in the regular defense budget. You silly goose.
In Washington, if you don't declare an "emergency" of some sort each year,
you don't have an additional opportunity to lard up an additional spending
bill with earmarks and pork. Geez. You really don't know how things work
in Washington, do you? Here, let me help you understand this better.
Last year, the president asked Congress for billions in "emergency" funding
for the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sen. Arlen Specter,
Pennsylvania Republican, used this "emergency" spending request as an
opportunity to insert a provision into the "emergency" bill which directed
that a $40 million grant to the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority "be
used solely for the purpose of construction, by and for a Philadelphia-based
company."
Stick with me here; the story is about to take some wild turns.
Here's how Sen. Specter explained the earmark to his colleagues on the
Senate floor last April: "This money is being allocated to develop the port
facilities in Philadelphia to accommodate a very new kind of ship which will
compete with air travel and which has very substantial military as well as
commercial purposes."
Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Well, maybe. Until pork-buster Sen. John
McCain, Arizona Republican, took to the floor and blew the whistle.
McCain informed the Senate that he had been in a meeting with the Secretary
of the Navy, along with Sen. Specter, to discuss this matter. He noted that
he was very proud of the Navy chief "because unequivocally the Secretary of
the Navy said: No, we do not want this money, we do not have the technology,
we do not have the design for this, this is not one of our requirements, and
we do not want to spend $40 million in this fashion." McCain added, "It was
as strong a statement as I have ever heard from the Secretary of the Navy.
This is basically a $40 million giveaway of the taxpayers' dollars to a
private corporation that has nothing to do with the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with it."
Yowza. But like Al Pacino in "Scent of a Woman," McCain was just getting
warmed up.
"There is no design today for a high-speed military sealift," McCain noted.
"I wish there were. It is affordable. But the fact is that there is not.
The fact is the Navy unequivocally said they do not want taxpayers' dollars,
defense dollars, spent on this port in the city of Philadelphia." McCain
again reiterated that "This has nothing to do with Afghanistan, it has
nothing to do with the tsunami, it has nothing to do with Iraq, and it has
nothing to do with the Navy's requirements for a high-speed military sealift
capability."
Sen. Specter then rose to the floor to defend his pet earmark. But McCain
remained unconvinced, and brought up yet another aspect of the project: That
the $40 million contract was being restricted to a Philadelphia-based
entity, a requirement McCain found "astonishing."
"In other words," the Arizona senator pointed out, "a company in Seattle or
a company in Charleston or a company in Oklahoma, they couldn't compete for
this (contract). It has to be a Philadelphia-based company. What is it
about Philadelphia-based companies that warrants them receiving a $40
million contract without competition from anybody else?" McCain added, "We
should not be designating certain cities as a base for any company to
compete for any contract of any kind. . . . In these times of burgeoning
fiscal deficits, for us to designate money to be spent by a local-based
company is just the wrong way to designate, and I think most Americans would
agree."
Yep. Most Americans would. But not most of Sen. McCain's colleagues.
Fellow pork-buster, Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, offered an
amendment to this "emergency" spending bill which would have stripped out
this $40 million Philly-only earmark. The amendment was resoundingly
rejected on a voice vote.
But that's still not the end of this sordid story.
Not only was this $40 million earmark restricted to a Philadelphia-based
company, but it turns out that there was only one Philadelphia company which
would have qualified for the contract to build a port for a ship that doesn't
exist and which the Navy had no interest in. That Philadelphia company is
FastShip Inc. And Business Week reports that FastShip executives "doled out
$8,500 to help reelect Republican Senator Arlen Specter" in 2004.
But it gets better...or worse, depending on how you look at it. According
to The Center for Public Integrity, Sen. Specter also "received $24,500 from
lobbyists working for Blank Rome LLP. So what's that have to do with
anything? Well, "One of Blank Rome's largest clients is FastShip Inc."
Ah, that tangled web of pork. But what a sweet deal, huh? Thirty-three
grand in campaign contributions in return for 40 million? I'd take that
deal any day of the week and twice on Sunday. And Washington politicians
wonder why taxpayers are (a) so damned cynical, and (b) so damned mad?
Copyright 2006 Chuck Muth. All rights reserved.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Chuck Muth
