Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process.
The definition of "earmark" from me is this:
Corruption.
The Seattle Times has spent some time and effort on this issue. Locally, both our own Congressman Brian Baird and our own Senator, Patty Murray, have been involved in this peculiarly arcane practice, a practice that is easily "solved" as far as how to address this issue is concerned.... but more on that later.
The latest iteration and expose' is one of the most despicable. Three of the most obviously corrupt Senators, (2 democrats, Clinton and Schumer; 1 Republican, Spector) have taken this to
a new level of sickening proportions: they have forced the military to purchase a less-effective personal decontamination substance and system than another available process that the military actually wants; a system less effective because it is a non-chemical agent neutralizing form of charcol as opposed to a chemical-agent neutralizing lotion.Here's the Times' description:
On the chance that troops may be exposed to a chemical attack, they are issued protective gear, including gas masks, injectable antidotes and decontamination kits. Just a few droplets of nerve agents such as Sarin, Soman or VX can be lethal, so a decontaminant can save a soldier's life.
The Pentagon has relied on M291 kits since 1990. The wallet-sized pouch contains pads with charcoallike powder that when rubbed on the skin absorbs the chemical agents.
Soldiers in Canada used a similar powder,
but in the late 1980s government researchers there were worried about it. The powder was messy, difficult to apply and fouled gas masks. Worst of all, researchers feared that any deadly agents absorbed by the powder would release toxic gases inside a soldier's mask, said Garfield Purdon, a lead scientist on the research.
So Purdon's team at Canada's defense department developed a new product called Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion, or RSDL. The lotion, wiped on the skin with pads, not only absorbs the chemical agents but neutralizes them as well, offering soldiers greater protection.
Canada issued the new lotion to soldiers fighting in the 1991 Gulf War. Its military later licensed the lotion to E-Z-EM, a New York company, on the condition that it make the product in Canada.
Shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. Defense Department said it was evaluating RSDL for use. At the urging of the Army Surgeon General, the Food and Drug Administration in 2003 approved the lotion.
"If used in time, this lotion can help prevent the serious burns and deaths that result from exposure to chemical-warfare agents," FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan announced. "FDA worked with the U.S. Army to expedite review of this product to make it available to our men and women in uniform as quickly as possible."
Oh.... did I mention how much they were paid?
Well, let's see.... Clinton sold out for only $7,000; Spector was quite a bit more expensive, he took in $47,000... Schumer wasn't listed. Maybe he did all this because he was asked to.
That said: the fix is relatively easy: 1. Make the "bundling" of campaign contributions illegal, both for the "bundler(the donor)" and the "bundlee (The candidate)" (Bundling" is another form of money laundering. That's where, for example, a single rich donor can spread large amounts of money around various campaigns by using other surrogates to make the actual donations using that persons money. Here locally, look up David Barnett and Rod VanMechelen among others, bundling 10's of thousands for a Congressman by the name of Pombo back in the 06 election)
2. Make it illegal for any employee or owner of any company receiving any kind of earmark to make campaign contributions for any federal race, including presidential, but certainly races for the senate and the house. (and by any employee or owner, I mean the employee or owner, his or her family members, shell companies, other companies they may have an interest in of any kind.)
In the alternative, insure a full disclosure in the "earmark" of any bill itself of how much the corrupt politician demanding the earmark has received from the "earmark's" beneficiary.
Corruption must be rooted out and done away with. Much of where we are today as a country, financially, is a result of this kind of corruption.
This would not stop the practice of "earmarking," but it would certainly slow it down.
And for "Change we can believe in," Mr. Obama must pledge to this country that he will veto any bill from anyone that contains earmarks.
I know that will be extremely difficult for him, since he rapidly became addicted to the practice the second he set foot in the senate.
But unless he genuinely fights to end the practice, then that will be yet ANOTHER of the many indications that the "Change" mantra was a sham.
But any thinking person already knew that.... right?
Originally published Sunday, December 7, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Comments (19) E-mail article Print view
Earmark helps businesses, not troops
Seattle Times special report After being lobbied by companies making a decontamination powder, powerful U.S. senators Charles Schumer, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Arlen Specter forced the military to keep buying what it considers inferior chemical-warfare protection for the troops.
By Christine Willmsen and David Heath
Seattle Times staff reporters
Since 1990, U.S. troops have used a skin-decontamination kit containing a dark powder that absorbs dangerous chemicals. The Defense Department has approved a more effective lotion, but earmarks ensured the old kits were still stocked.
The Favor Factory Read the whole series
Trail of earmarks
1990: U.S. military issues troops a kit with powder to absorb chemical-warfare agents from the skin. The product is known as M291.
1991: Canadian soldiers are issued a new lotion, RSDL, that removes chemical agents.
2003: The Pentagon discovers the lotion used in Canada is up to seven times more effective than the powder used by U.S. soldiers.
2005: The Pentagon tells Congress it plans to replace the powder with the lotion within two years.
2005: Rohm and Haas, which makes a key ingredient in the powder, begins lobbying Congress for earmarks for its exclusive product. The Defense Department buys a large stockpile.
2006: Sens. Clinton, Schumer and others put a $2 million earmark in the 2007 defense bill, requiring the military to buy additional M291 kits.
March 2007: After years of scientific testing, the Pentagon switches to the lotion, with no plans to buy more M291. But Sens. Clinton, Specter and others put a $5.6 million earmark for M291 powder in the 2008 defense bill, forcing the military to buy the inferior product.
November 2007: Senators add explicit language to the defense bill to force the military to buy the key ingredient from Rohm and Haas, even though the military has switched to the lotion.
Source: Seattle Times reporting.
Scientists have discovered a lotion that can save the lives of U.S. soldiers exposed to chemical weapons — a product vastly superior to the standard-issue decontamination powder.
Naturally, the Defense Department wants to scrap the powder and switch to the more-effective lotion.
But there's a problem: After being lobbied by the companies making the powder, several members of Congress pushed through two earmarks worth $7.6 million that forced the military for the past two years to keep buying the inferior product.
The product, known as M291, is made from a resin sold exclusively by a Pennsylvania chemical company, which is then processed into powder by a New York company, then assembled into individual kits at a facility in Arkansas.
Among the lawmakers who championed the earmarks are Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.; Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
No comments:
Post a Comment