Prompted by this week’s Washington Post story uncovering how federal funds were earmarked for projects in which the earmarking member of Congress had a personal financial interest, Scott Brown has issued a press release on the subject of earmarks. He wants us to know that he refuses to sponsor any earmarks, that he is a co-sponsor of legislation to ban earmarks permanently because they are insidious, and that he is disappointed that Elizabeth Warren does not share his views.
The release goes on to quote a November 2011 interview with Warren in which she said that earmarks “are creating some real problems,” but she is not prepared to disarm unilaterally: “so long as we live in an earmark system, it is part of the job of each delegation to protect its home state. That’s how the game works.”
The Senator’s release does not disclose if Warren was even asked about bills that would ban earmarks, but assumes she would oppose such legislation. He finds it profoundly dispiriting that she would think that bringing federal money to Massachusetts –if earmarks were involved — was part of her job.
Now, the funny thing is that Warren’s comments sound like the position Scott Brown took on the earmark question in 2006, when he told the Boston Globe, “I’ll do whatever I can to bring any money to my district.” He was speaking about a bill that the legislature had just passed providing millions of dollars for local projects, including $1.5 million for athletic fields in Brown’s home town of Wrentham.
And in annual state budget process, Senator Brown’s present rectitude on the subject of earmarks was never on display. A small sampling:
In 2007, he asked for $60,000 to install security fencing around a landfill in the town of Millis;
in 2008, he asked for $175,000 for an economic development program for Needham Heights and $100,000 for the eradication of invasive aquatic weeds in Lake Cochituate; and
in 2009, he asked for $175,000 for the town of Norfolk to mitigate the burden of hosting the Bay State Correctional Center.
Senator Brown may be right that working to ban earmarks will earn him our trust and support. But it would also help if he were to offer an explanation of his new position in light of his prior actions. State earmarks good, federal earmarks bad? 2006 earmarks good, 2012 earmarks bad?
And until earmarks are banned, will he really refuse to ask for federal dollars for projects in Massachusetts? The town of Wrentham really likes those athletic fields, after all.
(Crossposted here.)
and how these earmarks get put through in the legislative process.
Does the Federal government really need to be paying to repair a building in a town in MA? What is the greater good here? Is it important to the argument that the money has to be borrowed to do it?
The state on the other hand is taking money from communities and then giving it back. Some of these projects are paid for with bonds, but some are funded from the general fund. Regardless it’s the state’s money and it’s at a level that makes sense.
then proceeded to argue for what were earmarks by any sane definition!
The ear marks question:
What does Brown think that Kerry and the Representatives are funding with their earmarks??
Asked again, so in the first year no earmarks:
How are these NOT earmarks?
Pushed again that he would not submit any – he responds that the process is broken!
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/05/09/transcript_from_the_interview_with_scott_brown/
For a hint of how much the BG has covered for him – here is there article- http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/05/09/a_star_from_day_one_brown_settles_in
On that link, they have a VERY heavily edited version of the interview that is uses photos of Brown to splice the pieces together. I have never seen them do this for any other politician.