It should be maddening for any tax payer in the country to see how the public dollars are spent wastefully on projects that are not really benefiting the community. Today’s Washington Post story on one such wasteful spending measure shows how badly the lawmakers manage the money, despite the pressure to not do so from the administrations (incl. current and the previous administration ). It explores an obscure federal program established by Congress in 2000 allows tiny airports to draw $150,000 in federal funds every year.  The article uses Oklahoma’s Lake Murray State Park Airport as a case study. This issue of wasteful spending takes added importance as the public are nervously watching what’s going to happen with the looming sequestration (scheduled to kick in on March 1) as the country is embroiled in a tough political battle to avoid further slide. Brilliant reporting.

And a few interesting nuggets from this Washington Post story:

• 88 shown airports, as reported, have no paying customers and no planes are based there. (check the interactive map that shows the airports and the number of flights each one received)
• The airports receive $150,000/year, as the result of a grant program established 13 years ago ~2000, which the post appropriately calls Congress’s golden age of pork)
• The looming sequester crisis would not touch the airport program. FAA allotted Lake Murray about $1,500 for each of its takeoffs and landings.
• In this particular case Lake Murray State Park Airport there is no control tower, no runway lights and also staff to monitor it. So what makes people visit?  Mostly for using the rest room facilities and occasionally for golf.
• According to local TV affiliate KOKH Fox 25, the Oklahoma Department of Tourism has tried to shut down Lake Murray State Park Airport for years, but Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission (OAC) officials say closing the airport would cost Oklahoma taxpayers $184,000.  Under FAA guidelines, the airport must stay open for 20 years after the OAC spends money on an improvement project.
• Despite pressures from all corners, the program has remained strikingly difficult for anyone.  If it is any surprise, even

  Pres. Bush opposed continuing the program but the Tea Party dominated congress decided to continue with it.

Click here to read more.

Related articles

• Pork relic: Tiny airport attracts lots of federal money but few planes
• It’s Plane Pork
• Sequester Could Close Local Air Traffic Towers
• Trenton-Mercer Airport in Ewing may close if federal budget cuts go through
• Budget cuts could mean FAA furloughs, air traffic control tower shutdowns in … – NewsOK.com

(Source: Huffingtonpost; The Washington Monthly)

Let me make this clear upfront that my intention is not to make a political statement with this post.  I’m simply trying to find a reason and logic (possibly seek help from others to find these elements in our society).  Today’s Huff post had this article

“…On Tuesday morning, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that she wants to redefine exactly what an earmark is. Specifically, she said, transportation projects should not be placed under the umbrella. Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark,” said the Minnesota Republican. “I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark… There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway.” The Star-Tribune notes that Bachmann “did solicit some earmarks when she first came to Congress” but “has been outspoken in pushing House Republicans to continue an earmark moratorium enacted last year.” But transportation funds are vital for job creation. And it seems likely that the reality of having a major spigot cut off is a bit frightening to even the self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives on the Hill.

Isn’t that what the White House was trying to accomplish via the Stimulus package – revitalize our nation’s infrastructure with targeted spending? Why did they take so much flak and blame for out of control spending? If such selective exclusions are to be made for one sector (i.e., transportation), why not make it possible for other sectors (i.e., agriculture, education, etc.)?  Does this mean Ms. Bachmann would be supportive of building a High-speed rail network, which is  identified (and funded) by the White House as an important piece of the nation’s future growth strategy, if it is funded as an earmark?  Are Earmarks are bad, unless they’re going to Ms. Bachmann’s district? Cutting spending is good, except for the “legitimate projects that have to be done.”Are we missing something here?

Related articles

• Bachmann Wants Earmarks Redefined To Exclude Transportation Projects (huffingtonpost.com)
• Bachmann explains budgeting as only she can (washingtonmonthly.com)
• The Earmark Game (talkingpointsmemo.com)
• Leave Earmarks Alone (newser.com)
• Obama, Republicans agree: Reform culture of earmarks (ac360.blogs.cnn.com)
• Inhofe says he’ll keep earmarking (politico.com)
• GOP Supports Earmark Ban … for Now (pajamasmedia.com)
• Top Senate Republican joins push to stop earmarks (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• After DeMint: How Will Senate Democrats Handle Earmarks? (swampland.blogs.time.com)
• Senate Democrat joins GOP pushing for earmark vote (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Mitch McConnell Changes Course, Moves to Ban Earmarks (politicsdaily.com)
• Conservative senator lauds McConnell on earmarks (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Chris Weigant: Tea Party Republicans Win Earmark Fight (huffingtonpost.com)
• Earmark Ban Won’t Get the Federal Deficit Under Control (politics.usnews.com)