The Washington Post is questioning Barack Obama’s pick for Secretary of Transportation for a familiar reason:
The former Republican congressman chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to direct billions in federal highway spending has been an unapologetic advocate of earmarks, a practice Obama now opposes, and has used his influence to win funding for projects pushed by some of his largest campaign contributors.
It’s interesting to see LaHood’s earmarks reported in the national press. The Post goes on to list how much money in earmarks LaHood secured for Caterpillar, Lakeview, PeoriaNext, and road projects. They also report who his top campaign contributors are and match that list up to how much he secured in earmarks for those contributors. Cat’s contributions are no shock, of course. But I was unaware of these large contributors:
Local road-building companies also have supported LaHood. United Contractors Midwest, led by president James Bruner, is often ranked as his second or third largest donor, and its officials have donated $24,925 to LaHood. Three leading members of the Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association have given more than $60,000 to LaHood.
And:
LaHood also has been criticized for his ties to a longtime Republican state kingmaker in Illinois, William F. Cellini Sr. […] LaHood’s road-building earmarks have highlighted his relationship with Cellini, head of the Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association and other businesses.
Forgive me for being cynical here, but that would certainly explain why LaHood favors road and paved trail projects, and has opposed expanding Amtrak service to Peoria.
Government watchdog groups are not pleased with LaHood’s nomination. They say “LaHood’s selection does not bode well for Obama’s pledge to return transparency to government spending,” according to the Post.
“This guy has history of pork barrel spending and lot of a questionable spending linked to his friends. He’s going to be in charge of funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into local projects . . . and he’s not going to be suddenly changing his stripes tomorrow,” said Leslie Paige of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.
Nevertheless, I’m under no illusion that this will in any way derail LaHood’s confirmation. After all, if Treasury secretary nominee Timothy Geithner can continue to garner praise and support despite the fact that he didn’t pay his taxes for the past four years, one wonders what it would take to disqualify a nominee.
“derail” the confirmation. That’s funny, considering the Amtrak comment above. :0)
Can this posssibly be our “squeaky clean” Ray? Believe me, he learned all this crap from “squeaky clean” Bob Michel! It is a shame our government is based on people who go to Washington with their pockets lined with contributions from various companies and people and obligations to be fulfilled to those same people. You may sady that is the way it has always been done, and your’e right, but that doesn’t make it right. When are we going to put the people, not THE people, in the forefront of our judgement as to what is right for our country? When will we send some people to Washington, unconnected to big money interests, to do the will of he common folk? Look at what Schock claims to hve done already, brought money back to someone or some company. Is that what it is all about? When we have warfare, healthcare, jobcare,and other things to take are, and all we think about is bring money back to those who sent me to Washington.
Even if someone “unconnected to big money interests” gets elected, the big money interests will connect with them before they go to Washington.
Well Aaron is on the committee. How quaint.
Here is something interesting to think about.
The U.S. Govt. is $1 trillion+ in debt.
They have spent how many billions in bailouts?
If we have that kind of bailout money…why can’t we pay off the deficit?
I know, it sounds simplistic, but this big business/government conspiracy is getting out of hand.
NV: Thanks for the chuckles. Because the FR is a central bank and prints as much money as they ‘need.’ It doesn’t seem to matter that the more money printed should, at least in theory, make your money worth less – correct? Funny money. Many years ago, I heard a theory that if we paid off the ‘original’ loan that all the interest owed should go away — there are lots of theories out there.
Your questions put me in mind of another issue, the museum. So, if Peoria County is willing to advance the option of selling revenue bonds for the intent to build a museum, to be voted on by the voter on the April 7th ballot, then why not put out a revenue bond for a public safety or public transportation issue? Perhaps because one has not been brought forward.
As it is only .25 on every $100 of the specified items, it isn’t very much at the viewpoint. Stop and think about it? It has to be a lot in order to be able to bond out for $34.7M net proceeds minimum coupled with interest to $61.88M over 20 years.
What would $34.7M to $61.88M purchase for a different type of project? I think in those terms, there are a lot of possibilities for our community to think about prior to voting.
Questions to be asked:
If the referendum is passed, what would happen to any overage above the necessary bond payment?
Not known — that would be a policy decision to prepay bond debt, use on other public facilities within the county, including the Bellwood Project to be decided at some point.
If the referendum is passed, what would the amount be that the county would bond for the construction of the museum and financing the bond issue?
Not known. $34.7M to $45M in net bond proceeds for museum construction costs have been discussed at the last two Finance Committee Meetings. The higher number to allow for private donations to be utilized to start the initial endowment fund at a higher level to cover expected operation shortfalls based on Peoria County Staff calculations of the Lakeview proforma even if all projections are meet 100%.
If the referendum passed, and the museum deal components could not all of finalized by January 1, 2010, what would the county do with 1/4% sales tax for the next 20 years?
Not known. As the tax can be used for a variety of ‘public facility’ purposes, it not clear what the outcome would be for the taxpayer. Turn back the tax, bond for another public facility project — unclear.
These are only some of the issues to ponder and answer prior to voting.