On Wittman’s Earmarks (UPDATED)

Rob Wittman, who essentially has been my member of Congress ever since the Night of the Long Dull Spoons, made good on his promise to make his earmark list public (here it is).  Of course, after Tim Watson and I get through with them, he may rethink that (Update: Watson in particular noticed a Wittman contributor who did very well indeed).

For starters, I look at the requests for a US1-VA619 interchange circle and An Achievable Dream.  Now, I don’t mean to disparage either the project or the organization, but are they really so important that Wittman felt the need to request their funding twice?  The two instances of double-counting cost $6 million.

Meanwhile, there is a whole slew of “military construction,” which is all well and good, except that the Department of Defense is not listed as requesting any of it.  Over $24 million in requests come from the City of Newport News, while the $17.5 million to replace the Dahlgren Missile Support Facility is asked by - no one.  Something tells me these were requests that the DoD decided were not important enough to request formally, but rather fob it off on the local Congressman to sneak them in.  I’m especially worried about the Dahlgren funding, the explanation of which seems to have a greater focus on keeping Dahlgren “competitive” for a continued Navy presence.  In any event, it’s $41.8 million that the DoD didn’t think was worthy of going through the regular budget process (meanwhile, Tim Watson has informed me that the rest of the construction - for Fort Eustis - will go outside the 1st District, and actually go to Bobby Scott’s 3rd District).

Meanwhile, there’s $7.4 million in “defense spending” that’s headed for Jefferson Labs (which is actually part of the Department of Energy) and the Center for Innovative Technology (Department of Commerce), $17.2 million in broadband for the Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula (which just happened to be the two regions whose alliance helped give Wittman the victory in the Night of the Long Dull Spoons), $3.3 million to the Nature Conservancy (one of those environmental groups that doubles as a lefty-lobbying org), just over $3.1 million in fisheries welfare, over $1 millionin various pork projects for museums and other sites that, in a perfect world, would be forced to get donations from the public, over $1.4 million for cameras in Prince William county police vehicles (which the county just took out of its budget), and $800,000 for a Caroline County commuter station (with no mention of the VRE).

All told, roughly $82 million of the $132 million he requested raises serious questions. The remaining $50 million or so sounds justifiable per se, but almost all of them involve things that should be a local or state responsibility.

More to the point (and this is the larger problem with earmarks in general), these requests all come without any scrutiny or examination.  In some way, shape, or form, nearly all of these requests come from a government agency that decided, for whatever reason, not to put its own money to these requests.  Why should the rest of America’s taxpayers foot the bill for something these agencies and governments aren’t willing to impose upon the locals?

Now, I’m sure some may wonder why I’m beating up on Wittman for this.  From an abstract perspective, they would have a point.  However, Wittman is my Congressman, and in effect, these requests are effectively done in my name.  American voters and taxpayers from outside the 1st District should know that our views on these earmarks are hardly unanimous.

2 Responses to “On Wittman’s Earmarks (UPDATED)”

  1. Contributor to Rob Wittman’s (R) campaign gets his organization awarded with $2,200,000 in earmarks. | I'm Surrounded By Idiots Says:

    [...] The right-wing liberal has more, by the way. [...]

  2. Rob Wittman is at it again « The right-wing liberal Says:

    [...] Wittman is at it again Fresh off his $132 million in earmarks and his support of the egregious farm bill boondoggle, Rob Wittman continues to spend like a [...]

Leave a Reply