The Swine Line

Hang onto your wallets, AGAIN.  The House passed legislation today, an amendment to H.R. 3221, the Foreclosure Prevention Act, by a vote of 266 to 154, that will bail out irresponsible lenders, speculators, and people that committed fraud for home purchases and are now in financial trouble.  Here is a video by Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Florida) who speaks about people — like you and me — that pay their mortgage and rent on time but will now will foot the $300 billion price tag to “fix” the subprime mortgage crisis.

An earlier bill, H.R. 5818, The Neighborhood Stabilization Act, introduced by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), passed by a vote of 239 to 188.  This legislation would authorize $15 billion in loans and grants for states to buy and rehabilitate foreclosed properties.  We opposed this legislation because this was a handout to lenders.  After all, the houses are already foreclosed.  In addition, it would provide grants to leftie housing advocacy groups.

Unfortunately, these bills will do nothing to fix the subprime mortgage crisis, in fact the market is already taking care of that.  If anything, they could prolong the crisis.  Just what we need, more Congressional meddling in the economy.

The President has threatened to veto the legislation.  Let’s hope he does and fiscally responsible Members of Congress sustain the veto.

The Washington Post published an article today about the exposion of earmarks in DC: 

D.C. Earmarks

WHEN IT COMES to earmarks, the District of Columbia is making up for lost time. Just five years ago, these questionable appropriations of public funds didn’t occur in the city. Now they are routine. In the past four years, an estimated $98 million in direct grants went to private groups, and the opening tally for next year is approaching $40 million.

…This year, it’s $10 million proposed for Ford’s Theatre that is raising eyebrows. Both are examples of appropriations to specific organization made without competition or connection to any specific city program. The proposal to help Ford’s Theatre build an education center might well be a sound investment that would further downtown revitalization. Forgive us, though, for wondering how much Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) was swayed by an appeal from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), whose wife is a theater trustee. A thoughtful critique of the District’s use of earmarks was recently completed at the behest of council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D). Not only does it pinpoint the lack of competition and transparency, but it argues that the city often doesn’t know what it is getting for the money it spends. The report, by the council’s Office of Policy Analysis, says the council needs to abolish the practice or reform the process. …

Read this terrrific op ed in today’s WSJ on our nation’s ridiculous, costly, and increasingly incomprehensible attachment to federally-subsidized food-to-fuel schemes and the havoc they are wreaking across the globe: 

…All it took was a mere global “food crisis.” Last week chief economist Joseph Glauber of the USDA, which has been among Big Ethanol’s best friends in Washington, blamed biofuels for increasing prices on corn and soybeans. Mr. Glauber also predicted that corn prices will continue their historic rise because of demand from “expanding use for ethanol.”

Even the environmental left, which pushed ethanol for decades as an alternative to gasoline, is coming clean. Lester Brown, one of the original eco-Apostles, wrote in the Washington Post that “it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that food-to-fuel mandates have failed.” We knew for sure the tide had turned when Time magazine’s recent cover story, “The Clean Energy Myth,” described how turning crops into fuel increases both food prices and atmospheric CO2. No one captures elite green wisdom better than Time’s Manhattan editors. Can Vanity Fair be far behind?

All we can say is, welcome aboard. Corn ethanol can now join the scare over silicone breast implants and the pesticide Alar as among the greatest scams of the age. But before we move on to the next green miracle cure, it’s worth recounting how much damage this ethanol political machine is doing.

To create just one gallon of fuel, ethanol slurps up 1,700 gallons of water, according to Cornell’s David Pimentel, and 51 cents of tax credits. And it still can’t compete against oil without a protective 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imports and a federal mandate that forces it into our gas tanks. The record 30 million acres the U.S. will devote to ethanol production this year will consume almost a third of America’s corn crop while yielding fuel amounting to less than 3% of petroleum consumption.

In December the Congressional Research Service warned that even devoting every last ear of American-grown corn to ethanol would not create enough “renewable fuel” to meet federal mandates. According to a 2007 OECD report, fossil-fuel production is up to 10,000 times as efficient as biofuel, measured by energy produced per unit of land.

Now scientists are showing that ethanol will exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions. A February report in the journal Science found that “corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years . . . Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%.” Princeton’s Timothy Searchinger and colleagues at Iowa State, of all places, found that markets for biofuel encourage farmers to level forests and convert wilderness into cropland. This is to replace the land diverted from food to fuel.

As usual, Congress is the last to know, but maybe even it is catching on. Credit goes to John McCain, the first presidential candidate in recent memory who has refused to bow before King Ethanol. Onetime ethanol opponent Hillary Clinton announced her support in 2006, as the Iowa caucuses beckoned. In 2006 Barack Obama proposed mandating a staggering 65 billion gallons a year of alternative fuel by 2025, but by this Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” he was suggesting that maybe helping “people get something to eat” was a higher priority than biofuels.

Mr. McCain and 24 other Senators are now urging EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to consider using his broad waiver authority to eliminate looming biofuel mandates. Otherwise, the law will force us to consume roughly four times the current requirement by 2022. In fact, with some concerned state governments submitting helpful petitions, Mr. Johnson could largely knock out the ethanol mandate regime, at least temporarily.

Over the longer term, however, this shouldn’t be entrusted to unelected bureaucrats. The best policy would repeal the biofuel mandates and subsidies enacted in the 2005 and 2007 energy bills. We say repeal because there will be intense lobbying to keep the subsidies, or transfer them from projects that have failed to those that have not yet failed.

Like Suzanne Somers in “American Graffiti,” the perfect biofuel is always just out of reach, only a few more billion dollars in subsidies away from commercial viability. But sometimes even massive government aid can’t turn science projects into products. The industry’s hope continues for cellulosic ethanol, but there’s no getting around the fact that biofuels require vegetation to make fuel. Even cellulosic ethanol, while more efficient than corn, will require countless acres of fuel if it is ever going to replace oil. Perhaps some future technology will efficiently extract energy from useless corn stalks and fallen trees. But until that day, Congress’s ethanol subsidies are merely force-feeding an industry that is doing far more harm than good.

The results include distorted investment decisions, higher carbon emissions, higher food prices for Americans, and an emerging humanitarian crisis in the developing world. The last thing the poor of Africa and the taxpayers of America need is another scheme to conjure gasoline out of corn and tax credits.

Wouldn’t you like to take unlimited days off from work while still receiving your full salary?  Maybe you should run for Congress!  You’d also get a free car and a pay raise every year.

“Um, Yes, Senator Reid, Cough Cough, I’m Sick Again”

Here’s one way to tell who is the least elitist, out-of-touch presidential candidate: Which one has to show up to work every day to get paid?

We’re kidding, of course. None of them do. It was a trick question. …

Until 2005, an obscure law required Congress to dock the pay of senators and House members for every day they missed work, unless they or a family member were sick that day.

It’s not like anyone was enforcing the law, though. Just ask Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who only made 10 percent of the votes during his presidential run in 2004.

Senate appropriators decided they couldn’t just stand by and do nothing. So in the fiscal 2006 legislative branch appropriations bill, they rewrote the law so it wouldn’t apply to the Senate. (It’s still on the books for House members.) …

Now, with three senators running for the White House full time, the taxpayers’ group says Congress should reinstate the law – or the candidates should voluntarily give their salaries back. “At least they could reimburse the taxpayers for the ridiculously long campaign season,” said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the group.

That’s not likely, though, unless the pressure comes from the taxpayers themselves – especially the ones who live in the swing states.

Isn’t the Internet cool?  You get to surf the net to buy things, check sports scores and even read a blog or two.  Things seem to be working pretty well, huh?  Well, that hasn’t stopped the government from trying to regulate the Internet under the guise of net neutrality.  What is net neutrality?  According to a report by CAGW last year:

Network neutrality, a.k.a. net neutrality, is generally defined as a system that allows information on the Internet to move freely without regard to content, destination or source. Net neutrality is based on a false premise that Internet content is being or will be denied to any user. It is not in the best interest of any business to deny access to the Internet.

Well, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) believes the government should regulate the Internet.  In fact, on May 6, 2008 Rep. Markey held a hearing just for that purpose.  In a letter opposing net neutrality, CCAGW argued that such government interference would be detrimental.

So, if the government were to regulate the Internet, that would mean a whole new bureaucracy to “monitor” the Internet and the government would have the power to tell companies what they could and couldn’t do.  A lose-lose scenario.  Does this really sound like it is in the best interest of the taxpayer or consumer?

P.S.  Shhhhh, don’t tell the government about this blog posting, they may want to shut it down.

How much should it cost to restore salmon to a river?  Try $22 million per salmon under legislation that is moving through Congress. 

The salmon saga began seventy-five years ago, when the state of California decided to divert water from the San Joaquin River and use it for agricultural purposes.  Twenty year ago, a lawsuit was brought to attempt to restore the flow to the dried up section of the river, including a provision to restore wild Chinook salmon.  The activist federal judge who decided in favor of restoring the river is the same judge who decided that the words “Under God” should not be in the pledge of allegiance.  He included provisions in the final judgment that required a bill to be passed by Congress in order for the restoration to proceed.  The legislation would require construction to begin without the usual feasibility study or any other review.  A local member of Congress, Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) is opposed to the legislation.  The House bill, H.R. 4074, was approved in a party-line vote by the House Interior Committee over the objections of the minority.  The Senate version of the bill, S. 27, may be added to a larger water projects bill in the next week.  In both the House and the Senate, the individual legislation would bypass floor consideration, making it difficult for opponents to amend the bill to remove the San Joqauin River project. 

The estimated cost of restoring the river could reach $1.1 billion, and two studies estimate the impact on the local economy by re-directing the water away from local agriculture could cost $10 billion.  This is all in the name of restoring 500 salmon; hence the cost of $22 million each.  The work, if it is to be done at all, should be done at the expense of California taxpayers, since the state originally decided to stop the flow of the river 75 years ago. 

The river restoration was the subject of CNBC’s “Pork Watch” on May 6, and was written up on the National Taxpayers Union blog as well.  NTU and CCAGW co-signed a letter opposing this legislation.

 Watch your wallets and the salmon.

Jeff Birnbaum of the Washington Post has gotten to the bottom of the mysterious 6-page pro-earmark memorandum that was the subject of his column on April 29, 2008.  

The author was none other than a lobbyist for a big earmark-seeking firm here in town, W. Roger Gwinn from The Ferguson Group.  Jeff writes:

The six-page document, which has been creating controversy on Capitol Hill, was authored by — drum roll, please — the Ferguson Group, which says it’s the largest lobbyist for localities in Washington.

In other words — shock of shocks — the most active (and secretive) promoter of earmarks turns out to be a firm that specializes in obtaining them for cities, counties and public agencies.

Soon after my column on the paper ran last week, the company’s president, W. Roger Gwinn, phoned to admit that his firm’s seven-person budget and appropriations policy team wrote it — initially to explain to clients why they tended to get more money from congressional earmarks than from federal agencies left to their own devices. It was later distributed to lobbyists and congressional staffers.

I guess “Jessica,” whose name was imprinted in the document as the author, was the Hill staffer who had the job of cutting and pasting Mr. Gwynn’s document and peddling it as a staff-generated research paper.  The charade is over, I guess, but it is an instructive view into the underworld of earmarking. 

Keep in mind that states, municipalitiies, cities and localities are now perhaps the biggest supplicants for federal earmarks.  Why press the locals to pay for some dumb brainchild of a local politician when you can hire up some lobbyists to get the federal government to shell out the taxpayers’ money for your project.  This has become a tsunami of spending for wasteful local projects to the federal government.

Related Post: Red Hot White Paper? Not So Much….

on this morning’s CNBC Squawk Box, Tom Schatz discussed the $22 million salmon and taxpayer-financed cars for House members.

Will air at 6:35am eastern time on Tuesday, May 6 instead of the regular 6:50am time.

Two press releases for today:

CAGW Commends Decision on Cap of High-Cost Fund for USF

Washington, D.C. - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today commended the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) for its decision on reform of the Universal Service Fund (USF) and applauded the agency’s efforts to cap the out-of-control subsidies that consumers are financing. …

CCAGW Statement on Farm Bill

Washington, D.C. - The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today released the following statement from President Tom Schatz regarding the Farm Bill:

“On behalf of the more than 1.2 million members and supporters of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I urge the House and Senate to reject the conference report on H.R. 2419, the Farm Bill, and encourage the President to stick by his veto threat.  …

Outrageous story from WCBSTV-NY

Watch video

On YOUR Dime: Congressmen Lease Luxury Cars

NEW YORK (CBS) ― You may not realize it, but members of the House of Representatives can lease a car and have it paid for by you — the taxpayer. And it’s not just the car, but gas, registration, insurance … the works.

And as CBS 2 HD found out, there’s no limit on how much they can spend.

Congressman Charles Rangel was recently seen getting out of his Cadillac DeVille, which he leases for $774 per month. Then there was Congressman Jose Serrano, getting out of his Buick LaCrosse, which he leases for $317 per month. And how about this one: Congressman Gregory Meeks was recently seen waiting for Congressman John Conyers to step out of Meeks’ Lexus LS460, which Meeks leases for $998 per month.

All those leases are picked up by taxpayers through a little-known program available only to members of the House of Representatives. …

Members of the House who choose to lease through the program have had a great deal of leeway. Congressman Anthony Weiner of Brooklyn, for example, leases a 2008 Chevy impala for $219/month. Congressman Ed Towns of Brooklyn used to lease a Lincoln for $845 per month, but switched to a 2008 mini-SUV made by Lincoln, the MKX, which costs $715 per month.

Rangel spoke to CBS 2 HD by phone about the seemingly extravagant expenses being racked up on the taxpayers’ dime:

CBS 2 HD: “How would you answer those people who say, ‘Well, but it’s taxpayer money. Instead of $700 a month, could you find something for, say, $300 a month?’”
Rangel: “I could probably find something for … one of those red cars and then

I think my constituents would say, ‘With all the money that he gets, this is the respect he shows us?’”

Earlier, Rangel released a statement, further addressing the issue.

“When I’m in New York, my car is my office. I use it to conduct Congressional business. It really pleases me that (my constituents) appreciate driving in a comfortable car, especially the senior citizens,” Rangel said.
“The car isn’t just a vehicle for getting around; it’s an important part of doing my job and

my constituents appreciate it.”

I’d say I am shocked and insulted that Rep. Rangel (D-NY) thinks we all appreciate paying for his car, but then again this is the congressman who brought us the “Monument to Me” so I guess I can’t be too surprised.

OK, only in a policy-wonk hell like Washington, D.C. could a “White Paper” on earmarks be considered a “hot” item.  But that is exactly how Washington Post veteran reporter Jeff Birnbaum described reactions to this 6-page “research” paper which is supposedly making its way around Capitol Hill.     

Well, not everyone on the Hill got it, I guess, since this phosphorescently-hot screed is only just now attracting the attention of the media, even though it was apparently written on February 22, 2008.  And, you know, when it’s May, 2008, February 22 is so…yesterday.

Anyway, this radioactively-hot document is actually a rather pitiful attempt to justify congressional earmarking.  It is a not-so-subtle primer of talking points for all the folks on the Hill (the politicians, the lobbyists and lawyers who are already beating a path to the doors of their favorite approps gurus, the states’ and municipalities’ reps who are already drawing up their lengthy wish-lists of projects they swear they cannot live without but which they would like someone else to pay for, the private-sector corporations that don’t really want to bother with that pesky problem of competition and earnings and just want their sugar daddies and mamas in Congress to cut them a check, etc.).  You know who you are. 

This roadmap to earmark success is scintillatingly-titled ”The Fairness of Congressional Earmarking in American Democracy:  A Comparison of the Distribution of FY 2008 Funding (via Congressional Direction) versus FY 2007 Funding (via Federal Agency Grants).” 

The author was apparently someone named ”Jessica.”  Jeff Birnbaum seems to think that lobbyists had a hand in writing it, perhaps a shadowy group of K Street denizens with the seriously sinister name The 302(b) Group.  Who knows, he may be right.  

Our sources on the Hill tell us that there is a female staffer on the Senate Appropriations Staff (under the Centurian-like leadership of Sen. Robert Byrd) named Jessica and we have lodged a query with that Committee to find out if she was, indeed, the Jane Austen of earmark justification.  No reply yet.   

But you can already see that the arguments contained in this scorchingly-hot document have begun to blaze their way into the media as the rationalizations of prospective earmark-seekers.  You can just imagine, can’t you, how they must have been thirsting for something just like this, something that would lend gravitas to their pathetic, relentless congressional shakedowns and cadging for taxpayers dollars.

So, in this fiery-hot White Paper, Jessica is desperately trying to convince the reader that congressional earmarking is a way better way to spend the people’s money than anything the Administration or the agencies (especially the Bush Administration) could possibly dream up.  You gotta read it to really appreciate it.   

Along come Dannel P. Malloy and Robert Duffy and Mark Mallory, Mayors from Stamford, Conn. and Cincinnati, Ohio respectively.  The title of their op ed in the April 26 Washington Post?  ”‘Earmarks’ by Another Name: Democracy.” 

And wouldn’t you know it, several of Jessica’s super-duper, top-notch arguments and statistical comparisons crop up in this op ed. 

For example, in her scaldingly-hot White Paper, Jessica writes:

The Federal Transit Bus and Bus Facilities program provides funding to public transit agencies to purchase new and replacement buses as well as bus-related equipment, and to make bus facility improvements. Congress typically earmarks all of the funding provided for this program.  This year, when funding decisions were made by Congress, 313 grants were awarded to transit providers in 43 states. In the absence of earmarks in FY2007, the FTA hosted a grant competition for this funding. When these allocation decisions were left in the hands of the FTA, the agency awarded only seven (7) grants in five (5) states. 

The Mayors, in their op ed:  

In 2007, the administration awarded just seven grants for public bus transit, and half of the funding went to one city: New York. For fiscal 2008, when Congress awarded money for public transit through a reformed, open and transparent process, more than 300 agencies received grants.

Jessica, in her sizzling prose:

The methodology for awarding these grants, when left to the discretion of the Department of Justice alone, however, was not as equitable. In FY 2007, when earmarks were eliminated, the Department of Justice hosted a grant competition for this funding. To begin with, the Department pre-selected a list of law enforcement agencies who were even allowed to apply for funding. When the funding was allocated, the Department awarded only 37 grants to local law enforcement agencies in 25 states.

The Mayors:

Similarly, last year the administration gave only 37 police departments all of the funding for new law enforcement technology; this year, Congress awarded 560 law enforcement technology grants to communities in 42 states.

When Congress picks projects to receive federal funds, the selection process is more open, and spending is more fairly distributed. Most communities do not have the clout to play the bureaucratic game, and they need their members of Congress to fight to bring resources back home.

Are you catching on to the theme here?  It is very subtle, no doubt.  Democracy!  Democacy needs earmarks, essentially.  You can just see it coming. 

Which begs the question.  Why, in heaven’s name, when we are so blessed with such a level playing field in Congress, should we bother our little heads with Budget Committees and hearings and floor debates, all that other stuff?  We don’t need members of Congress to waste time posting a list of these life-saving, meritorious earmark requests on their websites.  

Why, when the congressional earmarking process is just so darned equitable and just, don’t we permit those selfless, noble lawmakers to earmark the whole darn federal budget?  (Talk amongst yourselves…I’m getting verklempt).

Why are we bothering with competitive grant-making, and merit-based awards, formula grants, measurement benchmarks, inspectors general, the government accountability office, federal agencies?   Doesn’t all this “democratizing” through the holy sancification of earmarks make you wonder why we even bother?

Let’s ask Jessica.  When she calls back.   

Today’s USA Today has an article by reporter Dennis Cauchon about how state bureaucracies are hiring up an ever increasing number of workers.  This is occurring because of the economic downturn:

Federal, state and local governments are hiring new workers at the fastest pace in six years, helping offset job losses in the private sector.

Governments added 76,800 jobs in the first three months of 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.

That’s the biggest jump in first-quarter hiring since a boom in 2002 that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. By contrast, private companies collectively shed 286,000 workers in the first three months of 2008. That job loss has led many economists to declare the country is in a recession.

Job numbers for April, out Friday, will show if the trend is continuing. Some economists say a government hiring binge could soften a recession in the short term.

“Government jobs are an important cushion for the economy when the private sector falters,” says North Carolina State University economist Michael Walden.

All I can say is “Uh Oh.” 

When have you EVER heard of the converse occurring?  For example, can we expect those same state governments to shed those same workers once the economy upticks again in the future?  I think we all know the answer to that question. 

And that means that state taxpayers will be on the hook for those workers’ salaries, as well as their healthcare and pension liabilities far out into the future.  Where will the states look for additional revenue to help them pay for those obligations?  They will turn to higher state taxes and also to the big “Sugar Daddy,” the federal government to help them defray those costs.  And when you consider the dire fiscal conditions facing some states right now, this story represents 365 degrees of bad news.  

Here is a bit more from the article:

State and local governments have run deficits for the last nine months, the Commerce Department reports. Tax collections went flat in the middle of 2007, but spending has continued to rise.

The USA has nearly 88,000 units of government, mostly local, that employ 22 million. Hiring has been strong at every level, from new CIA spies to preschool teachers. Some of what’s happening:

•The federal government increased its workforce by 13,800 in the first three months of 2008. Local governments added 47,000 and states 16,000.

•The Rochester, N.Y., school system added 289 teachers while the school population shrank by 1,300 students. It’s part of a state-funded effort to reduce class size. New York City is adding 1,300 teachers. Florida and Texas are also hiring to reduce class size.

•The Texas city of Weatherford (pop. 25,000) added an assistant city manager, nine firefighters, three police officers and extra crews for roads and parks. “We have serious infrastructure issues that we need to get a handle on,” City Manager Jennifer Fadden says.

Some states may cut hiring to save money. Governors have announced hiring freezes in California, Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York, but the actions seldom trim total employment. Louisiana has hired 4,100 workers, mostly replacements, since a freeze began in January.

You can read some pretty alarming recent reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about the state of the states and the extent of their unfunded liabilities here and here.

Remember when I blogged about a bill that Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) was going to introduce that would allow individuals who think they don’t pay enough in taxes to easily pay more?  Well, we have a bill number now: H.R. 5783 and there are 44 sponsors as of April 14.  Is your Congressman or Congresswoman one of them?  Let’s hope the “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act” is signed into law by April 15, 2009.

So for all you who think paying taxes are a privilege and believe a government program is the answer to any problem, here is your chance to pony up.

Tom Schatz discusses the missed opportunities for reform in the Farm Bill with CNBC’s Becky Quick on Squawk Box.

Hate to say “we told you so,” but maybe pointing out CAGW’s prescience on ethanol mandates will encourage lawmakers to heed our advice in the future.

March 20, 2008:
Corn Ethanol is Not a Panacea

When corn is converted into fuel, less of it is available for human and animal consumption, driving up the price of products made from corn, such as corn oil, corn syrup, corn meal, and animal feed.  Taxpayer subsidies for corn-based ethanol have enticed farmers to over-plant corn, as opposed to other food crops, such as soybeans or wheat.  With supply and demand economics at work, less soybeans and wheat means higher prices for these crops.  When these higher prices move through the food chain, consumers end up paying more for turkey, chicken, beef, bread, pasta, and other commodities.

Furthermore, because more land is being used for biofuel crops, the clearing of rainforests and grasslands has increased to make room to plant much-needed food crops or even more biofuel crops.  The studies found that clearing forests and grasslands for biofuels could release more CO2 into the atmosphere than gasoline, depending on what grew on the land before or how it was utilized.  Joseph Fargione of the Nature Conservancy, one study’s leading author said, “Any biofuel that causes land clearing is likely to increase global warming.  It takes decades to centuries to repay the carbon debt that is created from clearing land.”

February 19, 2008:
Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008

More scientific studies are showing that ethanol, particularly corn ethanol, is not the panacea to solve our energy woes.  Two studies from the February 8 Science magazine point out that converting crops, such as corn, sugarcane, and palm oil, into fuel is causing food shortages and destroying forests.  For those concerned about global warming, scientists are finding that some manufacturing of biofuels emits more CO2 than gasoline.  Citizens around the world are beginning to see the unintended consequences of politicians making decisions about energy policy and use.

December 5, 2007:
CCAGW to House: Put Brakes on Energy Bill

“Passing this bill will exacerbate the problems created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  That bill mandated that 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel (mostly ethanol) be added to our gasoline supply by 2006 and 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.  This has raised the price of corn and increased the cost of other grains, meat, and poultry.  Estimates are that last year ethanol production cost Americans an additional $14 billion in food prices and taxpayers $2.7 billion in subsidies.  Plus, ethanol is only a tiny proportion of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline the U.S. uses each year. …”

Government Waste Watch, Winter 2007:
Energy Woes

For example, according to an article in the July, 2007 Rolling Stone (no corporate mouthpiece), cellulosic ethanol (produced from woody plant matter such as trees, grass, and agricultural waste) faces daunting engineering hurdles. Even if those obstacles are overcome, the U.S. would have to use 13 percent of its land, seven times more than is used for corn production today, to reach the goal of replacing 50 percent of gasoline with cellulosic fuels. That will restrict growth of other farm products and further drive up the price of food supplies.

If the mandate for renewable fuels such as ethanol becomes law, the consequences are dramatic. Rolling Stone pointed out that current corn ethanol production is only 3.5 percent of gasoline production, but it gobbles up 25 percent of the total corn crop. Reaching the mandate contained in H.R. 6 will only replace seven percent of current domestic oil needs. Even if the entire corn crop was devoted to ethanol, only 12 percent of current gasoline use would be replaced.

In addition, for those concerned about greenhouse gases, a study published in the August “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions” by P.J. Crutzen et al. pointed out that the release of nitrous oxide (N2O) in the production of biofuels could negate any savings realized from a reduction of fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

Before requiring the increased production of ethanol, members of Congress should read the October 2007 report “Leaping Before They Looked: Lessons from Europe’s Experience with the 2003 Biofuels Directive” by the Clean Air Task Force, which details how a 2003 European Union mandate to increase and promote the use of biofuels “has exacerbated some of the very problems it was designed to solve, driving up food prices, leading to increased deforestation in tropical countries, worsening global warming, and increasing imports of biooils.”

August 27, 2007:
Davis-Bacon for Ethanol Plants: New Ways to Waste Money

Made in the United States from corn, ethanol is a gasoline substitute; running cars on ethanol means using less oil. The federal government heavily subsidizes corn growers and ethanol producers. Rolling Stone reporter Jeff Goodell observed in the July 24th issue that ethanol receives more than 200 tax breaks and at least $5.5 billion in subsidies per year. According to Goodell, ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of the nation’s gasoline consumption, but it consumes 20 percent of the entire U.S. corn crop. The Energy Information Administration reported that “Ethanol relies heavily on Federal and State subsidies to remain economically viable as a gasoline blending component.”

It is fair to say that many of the 114 ethanol plants that exist across the country would never have been built if not for government subsidies. Foreign Affairs reports that within a few years these plants will consume half of the nation’s domestic corn supplies, drastically increasing the price of corn and many other foods. Subsidies for ethanol keep taxes high and have increased the price of corn to its highest level in 10 years. For the average American, this adds up to both a higher tax bill and a higher grocery bill. …

July 30, 2007:
A Joint Letter to the U. S. House of Representatives on H. R. 6 and Other Legislation to Raise Energy Prices

Title I of H. R. 6 as passed by the Senate would increase the current renewable fuel mandate of 7.5 billion gallons to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022, while leaving in place the 51 cents per gallon federal tax credit.  Whatever percentage of the fuel mix renewable fuels constitute in 2022 would then become the mandatory minimum in 2023 and beyond, providing bio-fuel producers a permanent guaranteed market share, regardless of changes in technology or consumer preference.  This is corporate welfare joined to a Soviet-style production quota system. …

The current 7.5 billion gallon ethanol mandate has already inflated food prices.  Corn is a feedstock for meat, poultry, and dairy products, and in the form of corn sweeteners and syrups is used extensively in processed foods.  Title I would increase Americans’ pain at the plate as well as at the pump. …   

Title I also undermines global food security. The UN World Food Program recently warned that rising food prices are reducing its ability to feed the hungry. Diverting ever larger amounts of U.S. grain from food to fuel would further inflate food prices worldwide and threaten millions of hungry people who depend on imports of American grain for their survival.  

Wastewatcher, April 2008

Coconut Road Outrage
by Leslie K. Paige

An update on the ongoing drama associated with what Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has dubbed “the immaculate earmark.”

Fill’er Up with Politics
by Elizabeth Wright

The Air Force refueling tanker saga started with a provision added to the fiscal 2002 Defense Appropriations Act directing the Air Force to lease 100 Boeing 767’s for new fuel tankers. It was not only one of the worst examples of corporate welfare, this no-bid lease also ballooned into a major scandal.

South Dakotans Should Choo Choo Choose Their Own Destiny
by Paulene Staben, South Dakota CAGW Member

When one thinks of western South Dakota, one imagines sweeping vistas and beautiful ranches. However, the Dakota, Minnesota, & Eastern Railroad (DM&E) is threatening to grab massive swaths of this beautiful private land in western South Dakota to build 120 miles of new rail line.

What’s in Your Wallet?

by Katelynn Eckert
In an audit of federal employees’ use of credit cards, released on March 14, 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found some shocking charges with a debatable relationship to necessary costs.

2008 Pig Book Pork

by Alexa Moutevelis

On April 2, CAGW released the 2008 Congressional Pig Book, which identifies 11,610 pork- barrel projects worth $17.2 billion in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), the nation’s premiere taxpayer watchdog, and the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR), Tennessee’s free market think tank, unveiled the 2008 Tennessee Pork Report: Waste, Fraud and Abuse of Your Tax Dollars Exposed.  The report is the third Tennessee Pork Report in as many years to expose wasteful spending by the state. 

• $6.5 million for boll weevil eradication - even though the pests no longer threaten Tennessee’s cotton crops;
• $1.7 million to fund a ferry service used by an average of 23 people per day;
• $1.4 million to subsidize failing state-owned golf;
• $1.2 million to fund a ferry service used by an average of 23 people per day;
• $420,000 for electric motors that were never delivered to Memphis schools;
• $200,000 in subsidies for fairs and livestock shows;
• $27,620 to support a film festival that screened “Goodnight Vagina” and “The Teat Beat of Sex;” and
• $14,436 to replace dimmer switches in the Governor’s Mansion with fancier brass models.

I apologize for dredging up those long buried memories and invoking the comical words of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).  Hey, at least I didn’t salute….well, OK, I did salute, but at least you didn’t have to witness that.  

Anyway, according to the fine folks over at National Review Online, there may be a serious congressional challenger to CAGW’s Porker of the Year, Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.)!  Here is the info!

Today, National Journal reporter Ira R. Allen writes about criticism of Sen. McCain’s proposal to give drivers a hiatus from the federal gas tax for the summer.  The criticism comes from one Jack Schenendorf, identified as the Vice-Chairman of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, a Republican transportation expert, and former adviser to President Bush. 

Mr. Schenendorf just thinks it send the wrong message to offer relief to drivers when we have so much NEEEEED related to our national infrastructure.  People, read between the lines:  The Congress doesn’t want to turn off the revenue spigot that funds all of their pet road projects and egregious earmarks.  Congress has used the gas tax to a cookie jar, squandered tens of billions of the dollars on ridiculous and wasteful projects.  Here is a great quote from Mr. Schenendorf:

“There is no guarantee that any of the money is going to actually flow to the (driver),” Schenendorf said “But even more important than that, I think it sends the wrong signal to the public. We need to invest more (in the tax-supported Federal Highway Trust Fund), and suspending taxes just sends the wrong signal.”

It might help to know something about Mr. Schenendorf.  He also happens to be the same private-sector lobbyist who helped the Florida developer, Daniel Aronoff, obtain the infamous $10 million Coconut Raod earmark from Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska).  Here is what the Naples daily News had to say about Mr. Schenendorf’s role:

Part-time Naples resident Daniel Aronoff - owner of Agripartners - was one of many southwest Florida developers and landowners and SWFTI members who paid $500 to spend time with the man who chaired the House transportation committee. Aronoff owns 4,000 acres at the potential interchange site, including the 1,200 acres through which an interchange would run.

Attorney Jack Schenendorf is former chief of staff for that committee. In a statement sent to MPO members Thursday he says it’s not unusual for the recording clerk to make changes between the time a bill pases and when it hits the President’s desk.

Schenendorf also said there’s slim chance the bill could be changed to dedicate the $10 million to the interstate instead of the interchange.

“If the funding for the Coconut Road project were to be repealed, Florida would lose $10 million,” Schenendorf wrote.“There have been three separate attempts to pass technical corrections legislation. Each attempt has failed.”

And, in one of his previous incarnations, he also worked for former Pennsylvania Representative Bud Shuster (R), a notorious pork-barrel spender and the “brains” behind Boston’s “Big Pig”….sorry, I mean “Big Dig.”  Lots of stories back in the 1990’s about his largesse and accessibility when it came to transportation “interests.” 

The “Big Dig” was plagued with corruption, cost-overuns, etc.  And, in July 2006, a woman was killed while driving through the tunnel when a shoddily-secured, 12-ton slab of concrete fell off the ceiling of the tunnel and crushed her.  The city of Boston and the state of Massachussetts are struggling with how to “fix” the bungled project…..hold on to your wallets.  Both Massachussetts Congressman Barney Frank (D) and its former Republican Governor, Mitt Romney, have talked about how the federal government simply must step in to pay to correct the problems.  Here comes the ”Big Fix.”

Seattle Post-Intelligencer  reports on our April Porkers of the Month.  Reps. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-Kans.) respond:

Dicks, Tiahrt ‘Porkers of the Month’ over tanker

George Behan, a spokesman for Dicks, discounted the criticism, saying Dicks believes that the Air Force decision in favor of the Airbus tanker was “flawed.”

Citing the Boeing tanker’s smaller size relative to the winning tanker based on the Airbus A330, Behan asserted that the Boeing tanker bid should have won because it would be more cost-effective over the life of the tanker because, he said, it would produce “savings of $15 billion to $20 billion in fuel alone.”

Tiahrt responded to the pork-barrel criticism by arguing that the award of the tanker was “part of an alarming trend” within the Department of Defense to award major contracts to foreign suppliers from allied countries.

“We have a responsibility to do this,” Tiahrt said of trying to overturn the deal. “We have a responsibility to maintain a national industrial base.”

Unlike these representatives who have Boeing plants in their states, the GAO is an independent observer.  If GAO decides that the procurement process was not “flawed” and that the deal is indeed the best one for taxpayers and the Air Force, the contract should be allowed to go forward without Congressional obstruction.

The White House is seeking more than $2.5 million in FY2009 to cover the Perks of Office enjoyed by our ex-Commanders-in-Chief, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.  Among the items taxpayers will be covering:  Clinton’s $79,000 phone tab, $111,000 Bush is seeking for “other services,” and Carter’s $15,000 request for postage. 

The largest line item is $544,000 to cover Bill Clinton’s office rent.  When you have earned more than $100 million since leaving the Oval Office, I guess you need some swanky space to book all those lucrative speaking gigs and fulfill all those pricey book deals.  

Related post: Ex-Presidential Perks 

Tom Schatz announced the April Porkers of the Month - Reps. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-Kans.) - on CNBC’s Pork Watch today.  Rep. Tiahrt also appeared on the segment to defend his interference with the defense procurement process.

CAGW Names Reps. Dicks and Tiahrt Porkers of the Month

Washington, D.C. - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Reps. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-Kans.) April Porkers of the Month for threatening to reverse a $35 billion Air Force refueling tanker contract award to Northrop Grumman.  The losing bidder, the Boeing Company, has large facilities in their states.

Rep. Dicks said, “We’re going to try to eliminate the funding,” according to The Wall Street Journal, and called the decision “one of the worst … in modern history.”  The Chicago Tribune reported that Rep. Tiahrt said, “I don’t think the current contract can go forward.”  These members of Congress and others promoting parochial interests are meddling with the defense procurement process to the detriment of taxpayers across the country.

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics John Young told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on April 18 that it is “dangerous to set aside valid source selections on a political basis.  Do we have the California delegation kill a program because the Georgia delegation won?  I don’t know where this stops.  If I am going to demand that certain companies or proposals must win regardless of what they cost, I am going to disadvantage the taxpayer and war fighter.  I am going to deliver (a weapon with) less capability for more cost.”

At a rally supporting Boeing on April 17, Rep. Tiahrt’s office distributed a list of opportunities to disrupt the deal including the “War Supplemental,” even though the bill “is the wrong venue for a tanker decision.”  However, on April 18, CQ Today reported that Rep. Tiahrt “intends to offer an amendment to the supplemental bill to halt a $35 billion Air Force contract for aerial refueling tankers.”  The amendment would be the largest earmark ever.

The Tiahrt memo also suggests that members “[f]ollow” the lead of House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.), who declared, “All this committee has to do is stop the money, and this program is not going forward.”  Instead, members of Congress should stand aside and wait for the “plane truth” from the Government Accountability Office, which will issue its ruling on Boeing’s protest of the contract on June 19.  Reps. Dicks and Tiahrt are planning to pre-empt that decision, setting a costly and extreme precedent for other members of Congress who are “disappointed” with the outcome of competitively bid contracts.

The whole episode started with a no-bid earmark in the fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act conference report, directing the Air Force to lease 100 refueling tankers from Boeing.  Subsequent investigations stopped the deal and uncovered a scandal.  When all was said and done, the Air Force’s chief negotiator on the tanker contract and Boeing’s number-two corporate officer went to jail and Boeing was fined a record $615 million.

For their efforts to de-fund what appears to be a competitively awarded contract, undermine the integrity of the procurement process, and abuse the appropriations process with a massive earmark because their favored company lost, CAGW names Reps. Norm Dicks and Todd Tiahrt its April 2008 Porkers of the Month.

Citizens Against Government Wasteis the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.   Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.

CBS Evening News’ Sharyl Attkisson reports on an earmark for the wealthy Shedd Aquarium in Chicago.

This project is listed in the 2008 Congressional Pig Book:

$1,648,850 for the Shedd Aquarium by Senate appropriator Richard Durbin (D-Ill), Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), House appropriator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.). The aquarium’s website says the facility was a “gift to the people of Chicago from John Graves Shedd, president and chairman of the board of Marshall Fields & Company.” This aquarium receives 2 million visitors per year and has 36 corporate benefactors. At the end of 2004 (the last year for which information is available), the aquarium had a fund balance of approximately $200 million. Those are some liquid assets.

Today’s Washington Post relates yesterday’s developments on the investigation into the $10 million Coconut Road earmark.  After the Senate rejected Sen. Coburn’s amendment to convene a bicameral panel to get to the bottom of the mystery of how this earmark morphed from a general purpose earmark to widen I-75 in Florida into what could potentially be a political pay-off to a campaign contributor of Rep. Don Young’s (R-Alaska), they did pass an alternative sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) which throws the investigation into the hands of lawyers at the Justice Department. 

The House appears to want to deal with the matter through the House ethics panel.  Bottom Line for taxpayers?  Stop handing off the hot potato and deal with it.  And faster please. 

Here is an excerpt:

 Young acknowledged this week that he requested the earmark, and an aide conceded that his staff changed its language after both the House and Senate had voted on a highway funding bill that contained the measure. But Young denied that he pushed the provision as a result of receiving $40,000 in campaign donations from developers who owned 4,000 acres of land next to the proposed interchange on Interstate-75 just east of Naples, Fla.

Young’s office said that the earmark authorized money for a legitimate project and that aides corrected the legislation to specify that the money was for the interchange, not the general widening of I-75, as originally worded. Aides said a bipartisan collection of House and Senate staff members agreed to that correction before the highway bill was sent to the White House.

But Democratic and Republican senators this week said no substantive changes should ever be made to a bill after its final passage.

“If these allegations are true, this is one more example of the corruption that permeated the Congress in recent years,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said before yesterday’s vote.

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2005, said his staff had no knowledge of the changed wording. He said any suggestion that it approved the altered earmark was an effort at “covering yourself.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and 17 other Republicans supported the request for a Justice Department investigation.

Previous CAGW coverage
August 2007 Waste Watcher: “Nutty” Earmark Rejected by Florida County
August 23, 2007 Press Release: The Taxpayers Strike Back: CAGW Applauds Florida County Agency for Refusing Earmark

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) has written this special to the Orlando Sentinel.  You can read it here and I encourage you to do so, but I put a teaser just below.  He offers an economic analysis that politicians and taxpayers would be wise to think about.

“A market bubble is created by easy-money policy and speculative investment followed by a collapse in market values. Our economy teeters on recession. Politicians reward big labor with new powers at the workplace.

Large government programs are proposed to create taxpayer-funded jobs. Entitlement programs for seniors and the poor are initiated. Temporary “stimulus” packages are passed to placate seniors, farm workers, unions and the unemployed.

Presidential candidates and congressional leaders attack free trade, vow to instate an estate tax on the rich and increase taxes on corporations, individual taxpayers and stockholders. Foreign countries’ economies grow at accelerated rates while American jobs disappear.

Regulations are imposed to crack down on Wall Street, while state and federal governments bring lawsuits against demonized corporations for various offenses. Private companies are more heavily regulated to “protect” the public…”

 Click here and you can read more about it.

Moments ago we heard that the Senate Democrats have set a 60-vote supermajority for passage of Sen. Coburn’s amendement to initiate a bipartisan investigation into how the $10 million earmark to widen a portion of I-75 in Florida back in the 2005 highway bill morphed mysteriously into a corporate welfare earmark for a land developer with ties to Rep. Don Young (D-Alaska).

Best Quote of the Day, so far, by a Senate Republican: 

Less than two years ago, Democrats promised to “drain the swamp” and “break the link between lobbyists and legislation” if given control of Congress.  It appears that the new majority has instead made “the swamp” a protected wetlands for politicians, lobbyists, and campaign contributors.

Looks like, for some people, the ”Coconut Road” earmark, like so many other earmarks, is becoming the “Road to Perdition”!

So says Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)!  And she’s right.  Why, then, doesn’t she want the Senate to uncover the truth about who that person might be?

Not surprisingly, the subject is congressional earmarking and the corruptive habits earmarking engenders in Washington’s political class.  

The 2008 technical corrections bill to the 2005 Transportation Authorization bill is currently bogged down in the Senate because one senator, at least, is insisting that the Senate get to the bottom of how a previous technical corrections bill was inappropriately manipulated to insert a brand new $10 million earmark to construct an exit to Coconut Road in Florida. 

This is the earmark which was inserted after the bill had already been passed by both chambers, was supported by Alaska Rep. Don Young (R).  It would have benefitted a developer in Ft. Myers, Florida who had previously held a fundraiser for Don Young down there.  The good news is that the earmark itself has been stripped from the bill.  But Sen. Coburn (R-Okla.), among others, is sponsoring an amendment to this year’s technical corrections bill that would launch an investigation into who was responsible for that surreptitious legislative sleight-of-hand. 

Sen. Boxer supposedly agrees that something smells fishy here, but she wants to shift the burden of the invetsgation to the Justice Department!  Like the attorneys over there have nothing better to do than to babysit the shenanigans of a bunch of grasping, self-dealing politicians.  The reason she favors this approach is so that the Senate can get on with the pressing business of passing the new technical corrections bill, which is……crammed with new earmarks and additional money for previous earmarks!!

Sen. Coburn and his allies should hold this bill hostage for as long as it takes to get to the murky bottom of the Coconut Road cesspool.  Here is an excerpt from this morning’s Roll Call ($) article by reporter John Stanton:

The Senate bogged down Wednesday over competing efforts to investigate how a $10 million earmark for a road in Florida was slipped into a highway bill that had passed both chambers.

A tough-talking Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said people “ought to go to jail” for the maneuver — and said her approach would result in that. She pushed her amendment that would call on the Justice Department to investigate the matter.  

In a spirited debate, she squared off against Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who said the Senate should police itself and called for a bipartisan, bicameral committee to find out what happened.  

The Boxer-Coburn debate has been the focus of the highway technical corrections bill, which would remove the $10 million earmark. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), the former chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is believed to have played a role in inserting the earmark for the Coconut Road project near Fort Myers, Fla. The road would benefit a developer in Florida who raised money for the lawmaker.

Coburn’s amendment has drawn bipartisan support, including from Florida Sens. Bill Nelson (D) and Mel Martinez (R) and presidential hopefuls Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). 

Earlier in the day, Boxer, chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, broke off indirect talks with Coburn, contending that his approach would result in a “political circus” that would undermine any of the investigation’s findings and inject politics into a potentially criminal manner. 

“I think it’s very possible people ought to go to jail here. A Senator and a House Member can’t send people to jail. I think this is a much better way to go — it keeps politics out of this. If there was a crime, then the person ought to go to jail, the people ought to go jail,” Boxer said.  

“They’ll call hearings and the press will come. I can just see this thing. I want to avoid a circus. I want to put somebody in jail if there was a crime. What I want is justice done. I don’t want political theater,” she added.  

Coburn argued that Congress should police itself. “I believe in the people in this body. I believe that we all don’t like this happening. The best way to do this is to have an investigation. My worry is if we modify this amendment, or we don’t pass this amendment, is this political? Can we not control the rules of our own body?” he asked. 

The oratorical outburst from two of the Senate’s polar opposites — Coburn is one of its most conservative lawmakers, while Boxer is one of the most liberal — followed nearly 24 hours of talks between Coburn and Environment and Public Works ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who acted as a go-between for Coburn and the Democrats.  

Boxer, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) oppose Coburn’s amendment, as well as an earlier proposal Coburn and Inhofe floated to have the Government Accountability Office conduct the investigation. Boxer, who also heads the Ethics Committee, said the Senate should not be in the position of investigating a House Member, which she said would violate the Constitution.

OK, follow me here. 

The House is now dealing with a “technical corrections” bill related to the 2005 Transportation Authorization bill, SAFTEA-LU.  Oddly enough, it is called the Technical Corrections Act of 2008.  Technical corrections bills are usually aimed at fixing minor drafting errors and making small edits in the previously-passed legislation.  But technical corrections bills have gained an increasingly unsavory reputation, mostly as a result of the fact that some anonymous individual used just such a bill to insert the infamous “Cocnut Road” earmark on behalf of Rep. Don Young.  Who did it?  We may never know, although folks like Tom Coburn are still trying to get to the bottom of the mystery. 

This technical corrections bill actually wipes out that $10 million Coconut Road earmark in Florida.  Unfortunately, it contains hundreds of other earmarks and additional “plus-ups” to other accounts!  Go here to review the disclosure forms for members of the Senate.  And here is what the White House thinks of the “technical corrections” bill to the 2005 Transportation bill.