Earmarks revisited: What are they and how are they abused?
On October 11, 2006, Citizens Blogging did a post on earmarks linking to a Wall Street Journal article that provided one of the best explanations of the issue we'd seen. In light of the revelation that Rep. Obey intends to publicize earmarks in advance, we thought it might be a good time for a refresher on the controversy behind the earmarks process:
Today's Wall Street Journal article about Charles Taylor also provides a succinct description of the earmarks process. There has been an enormous amount of attention paid to earmarks because of the scandals involving Members of Congress, like the currently imprisoned Duke Cunningham. The passage below explains both how the process works and the opportunities for abuse:
But the growth of earmarks and the secrecy that shrouds the practice inevitably raises questions of self-dealing. Earmarking has been at the center of the influence-peddling and corruption probes that have shaken public confidence in Congress this year. The practice also played a central role in the case against former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. The California Republican was imprisoned after pleading guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes from defense firms in exchange for earmarks and other favors.
The growth of earmarking points to a shift in the way Congress works. Most federal spending originates in requests by departments and agencies. The Transportation Department might seek funds to build a highway interchange, for example, or the Pentagon might ask for new tanks. The spending proposals are then put into legislation which must win approval by Congress.
Earmarks are different because lawmakers can directly insert them into spending bills, often without public scrutiny. Many lobbyists and corporations have discovered in recent years that one of the fastest ways to get the spending they desire is to approach an individual lawmaker of either party on the House or Senate appropriation panel about an earmark. That has fed the growth in earmarks to an estimated $47.4 billion last year from $19.5 billion a decade earlier, according to the Congressional Research Service.
When you see terms like "secrecy that shrouds the practice" and "without public scrutiny" associated with members of Congress, it can't be good. Understanding how this game is played is critical to exposing it.
Earmark quality likely to improve!
Last October the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence reported that Cunningham's "illicit" earmarks funded "illicit" contracts. They also noted that Cunningham's earmarks granted Brent Wilkes control of the evaluation process of a majority of the government's grants programs. Just two months before...last August the Associated Press learned Wilkes was being linked to Russia. This meant Wilkes was evaluating the merit of ideas presented to the grants programs according to a Kremlin agenda and hence, not showing impartiality.
I did not know about the earmarking process, but I did know that beginning in 2002 my company was being denied RnD grants while in 2003-2007 many complimentary things appeared in the press from US DHS and Congressional mouths referring to my company's technological invention. In contrast, information collected on our activities by US intelligence agencies was abused and our CEO kept retreating to new democracies to evade sabotage. He was stalked and each new endeavor was taken down. Our latest RnD operation to be taken down was in France on March 1 which also is the day we were dethroned from our # 1 position as the drivers' license standard by the US DHS Office of General Counsel.
Beginning in 12/01 the Russian federal government began offering my company a 100 % financing package. We knew the Kremlin wanted to abuse our platform to harm Americans and everyone else residing within a democracy, so while the offer continued to be sweetened and later 2 buyout offers were made, we declined the offers and Wilkes continued to have our applications for grants turned-down at gate/phase 1 of the grants programs. Accomplices in Congress drew-up legislation that fixed federal law to inferior standards such as the biometric smart card.
Only when I began to link the sabotage of our U.S. and overseas operations to various corruption probes just over 1 1/2 years ago (Abramoff first) including the Cunningham probe did I learn of the earmarking process.
We now are up for a Schumer earmark. The same process that over and over again was abused for the Kremlin's benefit to take down many RnD operations, might become the process that finally enables Americans to have access to our platform. In business it isn't just about making money, but about making it in a socially responsible fashion so that you can sleep each night the rest of your life with a clean conscience. To date, the CEO's and my loyalty to the US and democracy enabled many people in government favoring (committing official acts for) Russia to stab us in the back, but the Schumer earmark might just be what redeems the U.S. federal government so it no longer is rated as our # 1 enemy!
This is just the story of what NIST calls "smart wallet" in its Biometrics and Security Systems and Applications program. I am aware there are other hi-tech companies that have the very same story we have! Using or should I say abusing the earmarking process enabled Russia to take control of our grants programs with Brent Wilkes as its agent. Every technological idea of merit was denied funding in the programs Wilkes controlled so that Russia could lure these companies within its borders and control them. If they declined the Russian offers then Wilkes and Dustin Foggo made sure they outright went out of business. Our grants programs were funded and did pay-out...to have crut developed! Our taxpayer dollars were wasted developing crut while deporting Americans' best ideas to Russia!
I more than anything want to point out that the corruption scandals have taught the companies that have good ideas that were denied funding in grants programs because Wilkes was working for Russia, that they should tap the earmarking system. For 2008, the quality of earmarks as a whole ought to be going up!
"Earmarks: what are they and how are they made?"
answer: see above.
identify yourself
If you are going to plug your company for government contracts and subsidies, you should identify yourself.
Your name and your company, please.
Syndicate this content
The reasons for New Orleans
New Orleans was flooded because the levee failed. The levee failed because it was not maintained. The levee was not maintained because the local authorities did not maintain it. Nor did the authorities make any provision for an emergency repair of a breach in the levee.
New Orleans is a harbinger of where this nation is headed if the trend of a century is not reversed and public officials held accountable for their misdeeds. What did the people of New Orleans do? They re-elected William Jefferson.
And people talk about what wonderful things these earmarks are.