Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > April > 02
Monday, April 2, 2007
When the pork is sliced, diced, keep clean slate
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
It’s a bit like a small-town sewing circle. Five legislators in a fourth-floor committee room at the state Capitol divvy up the pork. The door is open, the meeting announced. I wander in, just as I had days earlier when legislators appeared before the “Special Projects” subcommittee to ask for small sums, usually $25,000 or less, to purchase vehicles or other equipment for recreation, police, fire and other community projects.
They hate the word pork. Up and down the line, either in this gathering or later in conversations with House Speaker Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram) and Majority Leader Jerry Keen (R-St. Simons Island), my use of the word to characterize legislator-added largesse, makes them immediately defensive.
It’s a sore subject, in part because of timing. Congress, with its Alaska “bridge to nowhere,” has raised the hackles of fiscal conservatives who object to a budget process that allows powerful legislators to add unscrutinized and uncompetitive spending projects to appropriations bills without debate. That disenchantment may well have contributed to the loss of the U.S. House of Representatives last November.
It’s a sore subject, too, because Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle — in a grand gesture that House Appropriations Committee Chairman Ben Harbin (R-Evans) asserted is “about politics, ambition and leverage” and not spending — summarily rejected the House-passed supplemental as containing too much pork and non-emergency spending. “We are not spending what we do not have,” Harbin told the House.
Richardson was furious that questions about how to structure the supplemental budget were first raised on the afternoon of the day it passed the House. The Senate, retreating to an argument commonly made by fiscal conservatives and by many Republicans when they were in the minority, informed the House that its appropriations committee would strip out pork, new projects and other non-emergency spending, shifting them to the coming year’s budget. The supplemental, thus, would become what it was originally intended — one that makes adjustments to school funding based on new enrollment and to emergencies, such as PeachCare and indigent defense.
Those who object to the use of the supplemental as a second budget that can be used to borrow money and create new spending programs largely unnoticed — me among them — cheer the Senate position. The timing, however, does legitimately give the House reason for anger.
The Senate, Richardson argued, is merely shifting money, not spending less. He argues, too, that special projects the House included are worthwhile and serve a state economic development or tourism interest. I mention the Golf Hall of Fame, a $300,000 addition. “There’s not a greater place for golf than Georgia,” he said, and without the grant, the Hall “is about to be closed down.” He mentions $5 million the House added for the National Infantry Museum project in Columbus. Georgia’s $5 million will be matched by $20 million in federal money and $40 million raised privately, he said. Allocating the money is a tribute to the soldiers who have served in this nation’s wars, he argues, defending the grant with some emotion.
Each of the projects can, of course, be defended. Keen points out with some vigor that the Senate, with Cagle as a member, last year larded up the budget that they now righteously reject.
Truth is, neither the House nor the Senate, neither Richardson nor Cagle, wins this one. Down home, it just looks like more of the same. And if it is gubernatorial politics, it’s two or three years premature.
Meanwhile, back on the 4th floor, a “pork” process is under way that satisfies most of my requirements for doling out legislative largesse. Legislators, in an open hearing, make their requests to a subcommittee headed by state Rep. John W. Heard (R-Lawrenceville). The requests are scored on five points: community benefit, economic development, no ongoing operational costs, local cost-sharing and promotion of civic or personal responsibility. The sums are modest, usually $25,000 or less, with most in the $10,000-$15,000 range. Requests total $10 million. The panel whittles. The max allowed is $3.5 million.
It’s a sewing circle. State Rep. “Able” Mable Thomas (D-Atlanta) has requested $25,000 for an Atlanta Public School project. “You know,” says one of the panel, “she did a very good job in the well yesterday.” Others agree. Her project scores well, an 82, with anything in the 90s or over 100 considered a slam-dunk. “She gets a check,” the chairman declared.
Rep. Henry “Wayne” Howard (D-Augusta) has asked for $200,000 for a variety of projects. “Henry’s new to the program,” says one. He gets $25,000 for hometown projects, though that could be whittled down later.
It’s open. Transparent. Projects are graded and compete. And the money can be taken back if not properly supervised, as four grants were this year. I’m not a purist. Small grants can be incentive to communities to come together. Openness, competition and accountability is all I ask.
Permalink | Comments (76) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
