McConnell Reelected!

Sen. Mitch McConnell has been reelected as Republican Leader. And guess who nominated him? Marco Rubio. It is a fitting tribute from a member of the Tea Party for McConnell's humility in changing positions to oppose earmarks.

The caucus did not need to be divided by the earmark issue. They have serious work to do: restore spending to 2008 levels; permanently extend the current tax rates for all Americans; fix the START treaty that leaves Vladimir Putin salivating.

And if the Obama administration tries to use the Congressional earmark ban to let faceless bureaucrats invent their own porky projects for Democratic swing districts, then House Republicans need to exercise some oversight. Use the subpoena power; hold Congressional hearings. Catch some minion in the Obama administration attempting to build his own Bridge to Nowhere and save the footage for 2012.

McConnell on Earmarks: Let's Ban 'Em

This represents a milestone for the conservative movement, so I will post Senate Republic Leader Mitch McConnell's statement in its entirety. To be sure, earmarks represent only a fraction of the federal debt. But take a few billion here and there and it starts to add up to real money:

I have seen a lot of elections in my life, but I have never seen an election like the one we had earlier this month. The 2010 midterm election was a “change” election the likes of which I have never seen, and the change that people want, above all, is right here in Washington.

Most Americans are deeply unhappy with their government, more so than at any other time in decades. And after the way lawmakers have done business up here over the last couple of years, it’s easy to see why. But it’s not enough to point out the faults of the party in power. Americans want change, not mere criticism. And that means that all of us in Washington need to get serious about changing the way we do business, even on things we have defended in the past, perhaps for good reason.

If the voters express themselves clearly and unequivocally on an issue, it’s not enough to persist in doing the opposite on the grounds that “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” That’s what elections are all about, after all. And if this election has shown us anything, it’s that Americans know the difference between talking about change, and actually delivering on it.

Bringing about real change is hard work. It requires elected officials — whether they’re in their first week or their 50th year in office — to challenge others and, above all, to challenge themselves to do things differently from time to time, to question, and then to actually shake up the status quo in pursuit of a goal or a vision that the voters have set for the good of our country.

I have thought about these things long and hard over the past few weeks. I’ve talked with my members. I’ve listened to them. Above all, I have listened to my constituents. And what I’ve concluded is that on the issue of congressional earmarks, as the leader of my party in the Senate, I have to lead first by example. Nearly every day that the Senate’s been in session for the past two years, I have come down to this spot and said that Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American people. When it comes to earmarks, I won’t be guilty of the same thing.

Make no mistake. I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don’t apologize for them. But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight. And unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government.

That’s why today I am announcing that I will join the Republican Leadership in the House in support of a moratorium on earmarks in the 112th Congress.

Over the years, I have seen presidents of both parties seek to acquire total discretion over appropriations. And I’ve seen presidents of both parties waste more taxpayer dollars on meritless projects, commissions, and programs than every congressional earmark put together. Look no further than the Stimulus, which Congress passed without any earmarks only to have the current administration load it up with earmarks for everything from turtle tunnels to tennis courts.

Contrast this with truly vital projects I have supported back home in Kentucky, such as the work we’ve done in relation to the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Western Kentucky.

Here was a facility at which workers, for years, were unaware of the dangers that the uranium at the plant posed to their health or how to safely dispose of the hazardous materials that were used there. Thanks to an expose about the plant in the 90s by the “Washington Post”, the danger was made known and I set about forcing the government to put a cleanup plan in place and to treat the people who had worked there. Through the earmark process, we were able to force reluctant administrations of both parties to do what was needed to clean up this site and to screen the people who had worked there for cancer. These screenings saved lives, and they would not have happened if Congress had not directed the funds to pay for them.

Another success story is the Bluegrass Army Depot, which houses some of the deadliest materials and chemical weapons on earth. As a nation we had decided that we would not use the kind of weapons that were stored at this site; and yet the federal government was slow to follow through on safely dismantling and removing them, even after we’d signed an international treaty that required it. But thanks to congressional appropriations we are on the way to destroying the chemical weapons at this site safely and thus protect the community that surrounds it.

Administrations of both parties have failed to see the full merit in either of these projects, which is one of the reasons I have been reluctant to cede responsibility for continuing the good work that is being done on them and on others to the Executive Branch.

So I’m not wild about turning over more spending authority to the executive branch, but I have come to share the view of most Americans that our nation is at a crossroads; that we will not be able to secure the kind of future we want for our children and grandchildren unless we act, and act quickly; and that only way we will be able to turn the corner and save our future is if elected leaders like me make the kinds of difficult decisions voters are clearly asking us to make.

Republicans in and out of Washington have argued strenuously for two years that spending and debt are at crisis levels. And we have demonstrated our seriousness about cutting spending and reining in government. Every Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, for instance, voted against every appropriations bill in committee this year because they simply cost too much. Most included funding for projects in our home states. We voted against them anyway.

Banning earmarks is another small but important symbolic step we can take to show that we’re serious, another step on the way to serious and sustained cuts in spending and to the debt.

Earlier this month voters across the country said they are counting on Republicans to make tough decisions. They gave us a second chance. With this decision, I’m telling them that they were right to put their trust in us. And it’s my fervent hope that it will help demonstrate to the American people in some way just how serious Republicans are about not letting them down.

Republican Leaders in the House and Senate are now united on this issue, united in hearing what the voters have been telling us for two years — and acting on it.

This is no small thing. Old habits aren’t easy to break, but sometimes they must be. And now is such a time. With a $14 trillion debt and an administration that talks about cost-cutting, but then sends over a budget that triples the national debt in 10 years and creates a massive new entitlement program, it’s time for some of us in Washington to show in every way possible that we mean what we say about spending.

With Republican leaders in Congress united, the attention now turns to the President. We have said we are willing to give up discretion; now we’ll see how he handles spending decisions. And if the president ends up with total discretion over spending, we will see even more clearly where his priorities lie. We already saw the administration’s priorities in a Stimulus bill that’s become synonymous with wasteful spending, that borrowed nearly $1 trillion for administration earmarks like turtle tunnels, a sidewalk that lead to a ditch, and research on voter perceptions of the bill.

Congressional Republicans uncovered much of this waste. Through congressional oversight, we will continue to monitor how the money taxpayers send to the administration is actually spent. It’s now up to the President and his party leaders in Congress to show their own seriousness on this issue, to say whether they will join Republican leaders in this effort and then, after that, in significantly reducing the size and cost and reach of government. The people have spoken. They have said as clearly as they can that this is what they want us to do.

They will be watching.

Lunsford's Wealth Blinds His Sense of Reality

Bruce Lunsford's wealth is so vast that he cannot fathom the good that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has done for Kentucky by procuring a half a trillion dollars in federal funding that would have gone to other states but for McConnell. Lunsford dismissed the federal money that McConnell won for Kentucky as the "little bit of money that Kentucky gets back," according to Politickerky. (Emphasis added.)

Only a really, really rich guy would call this scale of federal appropriations a "little bit of money."

Take just one Kentucky county as an example. McConnell's bus tour stopped in Christian County yesterday. McConnell directed to that county, according to his campaign:

• $214 million for projects at Fort Campbell.

• $800,000 for the completion of the Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway.

• $200,000 for the Hopkinsville-Christian County Pennyrile Narcotics Task Force.

• $500,000 to assist St. Luke’s Free Clinic in Hopkinsville.

• Over $60 million in tobacco buyout funds for farmers.

And that's just for one county. But to Bruce Lunsford, it's chump change.

In addition to having no sense of what a half a trillion dollars of federal money means to a poor state, Lunsford makes the simplistic argument that earmarks are evil.

It is beyond dispute that the earmark process needs reform, and in particular needs more transparency. Any such reform, however, is best led by the executive branch, which has no dog in the hunt for earmarks. Sen. John. McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin are in the best position to take on the issue of earmarks because they have done so before.

Until the system is changed, whoever represents Kentucky has an obligation to do as much good for our state as possible. That's part of the job of representing us in Congress. Even Rep. John Yarmuth gets that, and therefore boasted on the Francene show about the amount of "directed funding" he has directed to Kentucky.

C-J Loves Piglet (D-KY)

The Courier-Journal makes no pretense that it is a detached and impartial gatekeeper of the news. Take its coverage of earmarks flowing to Kentucky.

This week, it ran a flattering account of Congressman John Yarmuth delivering a whopping $900,000 in earmarks for assorted projects in Louisville.

But the paper ignored a news release about a much bigger prize -- $10 million -- that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell procured for U of L. The C-J ignored an earmark that is ten times the size of what Yarmuth obtained.

Its coverage was exactly opposite of what a rationale reader would expect. Size matters.

The paper complains about pork, except when it comes from Yarmuth, whom it shamelessly promotes for reelection. The difference in the coverage cannot be explained by the number of zeros in the earmark, but rather the "D" next to Yarmuth and the "R" next to McConnell.

C-J Fails to Print Letter from University Presidents

The presidents of three of Kentucky's largest universities wrote a letter to the Courier-Journal to rebut David Hawpe's nonsensical assertion that Mitch McConnell caused Kentucky colleges to raise tuition. It's an important rejoinder from three people who address Hawpe's subject with knowledge and authority. Yet the C-J failed to print the letter in hard-copy; it only ran in the on-line edition.

The letter comes from James Ramsey, president of University of Louisville, Gary A. Ransdell, president of Western Kentucky University, and James C. Votruba, president of Northern Kentucky University. When three of the highest-ranking educators in the Commonwealth speak with one voice on an issue,most would call whatever they have to say newsworthy. But not the C-J.

This is the consequence of a the C-J's monopoly status: when it decides to go after a candidate, it fails to give its subscribers the opposing view. The paper tries to inoculate itself from a charge of bias by printing the university presidents' letter in the online edition, where only a small fraction of its subscribers will read it.

This blog previously addressed the merits of Hawpe's arguments that McConnell, a U.S. Senator, could cause tuition to raise at Kentucky colleges. McConnell likewise has responded to Hawpe's accusations.

Because the C-J will not keep the online edition available for the entire election season -- and because it failed to print the letter in its hard copy -- I will reprint it in its entirety:

Sen. Mitch McConnell has used his seniority and considerable influence in the United States Senate to move Kentucky's universities forward in extraordinary ways that allow us to serve Kentuckians and improve the quality of life for our commonwealth's citizens.
In David Hawpe's recent column "Give Mitch McConnell Credit Where Credit is Due," he cites a number of examples of federal funds earmarked for the Kentucky Community and Technical College System, Northern Kentucky University, the University of Kentucky, the University of Louisville and Western Kentucky University. We would argue that federal dollars are going to be spent, and we much prefer to have them spent at Kentucky's universities where we know best how to solve real-life problems that plague Kentuckians than at universities that will never touch the lives of Kentuckians.

At the University of Louisville, the Cardiac Innovation Institute – a groundbreaking research center designed to bring together the best minds in the field to improve the quality of life for heart failure patients -- was made possible because of the work of Sen. McConnell. He also helped secure federal dollars to expand Uof L's library that has earned it the distinction of being one of the Top 100 Research Libraries in America for our students, faculty, and the Louisville community. In Owensboro, federal dollars obtained by Sen. McConnell were used to start a Uof L partnership with the Owensboro Cancer Research Project to use tobacco plants to create cancer drugs.

Sen. McConnell has secured nearly $60 million for WKU over the last 10 years. WKU's Rural Mobile Health Unit, purchased and equipped with federal funds obtained by Sen. McConnell, takes students and faculty into surrounding communities to provide needed dental and health care services to school children while at the same time giving WKU students valuable real-life work experience. Federal funds have also been used at WKU for energy research, environmental initiatives, intervention programs for at-risk youth, and much, much more.
At Northern Kentucky University, Sen. McConnell has directed important funding for Kentucky math and science improvement, informatics and economic development initiatives – all a part of the university's talent development business plan designed to escalate Northern Kentucky's contribution to Kentucky's economic progress.

To lose the critical federal funding that Sen. McConnell directs to Kentucky's universities would be devastating. Those federal funds not only benefit our universities, but they directly impact Kentuckians who badly need the services and programs these funds support.
So together we thank Sen. McConnell for what he has done to help us advance higher education in Kentucky. He certainly does deserve proper credit, and we'll continue to thank him when an opportunity is presented.

James Ramsey is president of University of Louisville, Gary A. Ransdell is president of Western Kentucky University, and James C. Votruba is president of Northern Kentucky University.

Hawpe and his cronies at the C-J are entitled to their (mistaken) views. But by failing actually to print the university presidents' letter, they have crossed the line from partisan to deceitful. They manage to print letters from numerous cranks every day; surely a direct response from some of the Commonwealth's most esteemed educators warrants the same courtesy.

McConnell Responds to Hawpe

For non-Louisville readers, here's Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell's response to David Hawpe's bizarre C-J column, in which Hawpe blamed McConnell for tution increases passed by the state General Assembly.

The C-J doesn't keep it's online edition up very long, so I'll play archivist and excerpt my favorite McConnell line:

Anybody with a basic understanding of civics knows that as Kentucky's senior senator in Washington, D.C., I have nothing to do with a state budget that is negotiated between the governor and the legislature in Frankfort. And the idea that one comment from me could escalate tuition rates across the state is even more ludicrous.

McConnell did a better job than I putting into concrete terms the vast good that comes from the millions of federal dollars that he directs to Kentucky:

U of L is at the forefront of medical research to fight heart disease and cancer. UK is expanding access to dental care in many rural parts of the state. WKU scientists help small communities provide safe drinking water and prevent wastewater from damaging our streams and rivers. And teaching programs at Northern Kentucky University help improve math and science instruction for Kentucky students.

The many Kentuckians whose lives have been improved by these efforts probably don't scoff at my efforts the way David Hawpe does, and would be happy to see me continue to bring home university funding to benefit our state. So I will.

It is beyond dispute that Bruce Lunford, as Freshman senator, could not bring this kind of money back to Kentucky (in the unlikely event that he were elected). Lunsford's TV ads not only acknowledge but underscore McConnell's seniority.

So the question for Lunsford becomes, is he willing to dip into his vast personal fortune to pay for those millions of dollars in earmarks that Kentucky would lose if it elects Lunsford?

Deconstructing Hawpe

David Hawpe continues to shock and amaze us in with his campaign to send Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell packing.

This week, Hawpe complained that Kentucky colleges are losing money, due to the"General Assembly following those no-new-tax instructions that McConnell gave his fellow Republicans back in 2000, when they took over the state Senate." It follows, in Hawpian illogic, that "the state's universities should be sending out press releases announcing how many millions they have lost, thanks to Sen. Mitch McConnell."

The "General Assembly [is] following those no-new tax instructions" from McConnell? Who knew that McConnell is so powerful that he controls even House Speaker Jody Richards and his Democratic minions. Talk about conspiracy theories.

But back to Hawpe's "reasoning." Hawpe is mad that Kentucky colleges are raising tuition; he calls this the "McConnell tuition hike." If the state legislature had been more generous, Hawpe argues, tuition would not go up. Maybe.

Even if Hawpe's assumption is correct, however, colleges should pass their increased costs on to their consumers -- the students. That's fairer and more efficient than financing higher education based on how much poor people smoke, for example.

Yes, that means that students will have to take out loans. But any student who is unwilling to invest in himself is not mature enough to be going to college in the first place. A student who is literally invested in his education, in contrast, is more likely to make it to class -- and to graduate on time.

Hawpe bemoans the cuts in spending that he attributes to the Republicans' (and Democrats') refusal to tax. Businesses, however, cut spending all the time. And any business that doesn't do so fast enough doesn't stay in business -- unless the government bails it. Moreover, raising taxes makes it harder to convince businesses to relocate to Kentucky.

The most bizarre aspect of Hawpe's rant is that he implicitly criticizes McConnell for doing too well, for bringing too much research money to Kentucky colleges, though he does so with the back-handed compliment to McConnell: "Give credit where it's due."

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, earmarks for colleges have increased since the Democrats took control of Congress (though they campaigned to end earmarks). Even Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have won earmarks to support colleges in their states. McConnell just does it better.

Here's a sampling why McConnell deserves not only credit but our thanks and our vote. The University of Louisville this year ranks 11th in terms of earmarks, according to Higher Education, with total of $21.2 in federal grants. Note that five years ago, before McConnell became Republican Leader, U of L ranked 36th, with $12.6 million. Seniority matters. Any state that replaces a Senate party leader with a Freshman will lose millions of dollars as a direct result.

McConnell took care of University of Kentucky, too. This year, UK ranked 14th in the earmark contest, netting $17.6 in federal money. That's up from 43rd ($11.5) in 2003.

Many other Kentucky institutions of higher learning received federal money. So much so, that Higher Education ranks Kentucky second in the nation for "academic pork": $165 million. There's no way that the Kentucky General Assembly would give our colleges that amount of money, no matter how much it hiked taxes.

As for Hawpe and anyone else who is bitter about not being taxed enough, you are free to write a check to the Commonwealth or your favorite school.

We do owe Hawpe a thank you, of sorts. He is the nearest thing that McConnell has to a real opponent, and the election would be tedious without a little opposition.

Beshear: Send Us More Earmarks!

Governor Steve Beshear took time out from shmoozing Washington to note that the Ohio River bridges cannot be built without federal money. For most of us, that's beyond dispute.

But for Beshear (and Democrats running for U.S. Senate), it's an epiphany: earmarks benefit the district lucky enough to receive them.

Not surprisingly, the Courier-Journal spins Beshear'`s comments into an indictment of the Bush administration rather than an acknowledgment that we need earmarks. Indeed, the C-J headline -- "Beshear criticizes Bush transportation spending"-- suggests just the opposite, that Beshear thinks Bush has spent too much.

In fact, Beshear reiterated that Kentucky requires federal money to build the Ohio River bridges:

"The states don't have the resources to build these mega-projects," Beshear said. "And it is going to require the federal government to be part of that solution. They may not be the whole solution, but they've got to be part of that solution. Otherwise, none of these projects can move forward, whether that's in Kentucky or in any other state in the Union."

Besehear might protest that he doesn't want earmarks -- he simply wants a "national transportation policy" in which the "federal government needs to be a real partner in that policy with state and local governments."

Granted, this is Beshear's first meeting in the Natinal Governor's Association. But even a newbie should understand that the faceless bureaucrats in th`e Department of Transportation do not drive Kentucky roads; they don't know whether we need a bridge and don't care if we get one. Members of the Kentucky delegation, in contrast, drive our roads and know our needs first-hand.

That's why it's so important that our delegation includes as much seniority as possible, and why Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has been so effective at making sure that Kentucky's requests for infrastructure funding don't get buried in some minion's cubicle in Washington.

To be sure, there have been members of Congress who have abused earmarks, which is why McConnell has called for more trasparency. But as Beshear and every resident of the Commonwealth knows, Kentucky hasn't asked for a "Bridge to Nowhere." Just a bridge (or two) to Indiana.