Earmark Toolkit

Editorials and Opinions

Print this page

October 24, 2006

Another earmark, another fix

The Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky)

The story can be told in brief: U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers' office steered $2.9 million in federal money through the state to a non-profit tourism group in his district, which one of his staff serves as board vice president, and which sent part of the money to a company that employs the Kentucky congressman's son.

What takes longer are the denials, evasions and excuses, the interpretations, rationalizations and extenuations -- all the great piling up of reasons for taxpayers and voters to ignore the truth.

The truth is, this stinks.

Whether or not the odor can be perfumed by expert public relations, it will not go away.

Certainly, it will spoil the air of any gubernatorial campaign that Mr. Rogers might be planning next year.

This isn't about law-breaking. It's about coziness, of the kind that makes ordinary folks -- who have to find their own ways to help their kids, without proceeds from non-bid contracts -- cynical about government.

Auditor Crit Luallen, herself a gubernatorial possibility on the Democratic side next year, said the Rogers case "pointed out some unique problems we didn't see elsewhere."

She suggests tighter controls on all state contracts awarded to outside parties, in order to prevent loopholes and abuses.

Mr. Rogers says he's proud of this deal.

The rat is always proud to have lugged the cheese into his hole. But did he have to be disingenuous about it, too?

He said, "From what I understand, this arrangement was adequately agreed upon and reviewed…" as if he had received the news from outer space.

The fact is, you don't become one of the Capitol's most successful pork barrel politicians by standing off at a distance and watching others make rangements and do deals.

You become a Hal Rogers by knowing where the money is and how to move it from there to where you are.

One of the easiest ways is by "earmarking" it for your own purposes. And having your own staff explain the "congressional intent."

Permalink