My Letter on Baron's Shady Earmarks

Your humble correspondent wrote in to the Corydon Democrat (my local paper; scroll down a bit on the page) this week in response to a Democrat that was responding to Todd Young's recent letter on Baron Hill blocking sunlight.

The letter I am responding to is visible right below mine on that same page, and Todd Young's letter is available here.

It's nothing much new to readers of this blog, but I figure I'll repost it here for reference regardless.

Despite changes, things stay the same with Hill

Corydon, Ind.

I am writing in response to Christine Pendleton's letter ("Hill's projects make a difference in the community") in the Sept. 12 edition of The Corydon Democrat.

What a surprise it must be for someone to call the staff of Congressman Baron Hill with a question and hear from them the haughty and laughable assertion that their boss is as innocent and pure as new-fallen snow.

Mr. Hill campaigned in 2006 on cleaning up Washington. This is something that has demonstrably not happened. This is particularly true when it comes to earmarks, let alone when one considers Democrats such as William Jefferson who was caught by the FBI with $90,000 in bribes in his freezer.

A recent defense appropriations bill (H.R. 3222) approved by Baron Hill and the House of Representatives contained 1,776 earmarks. Earlier in the year, Democrats managed to pack $20 billion in pork-barrel earmarks into one bill (H.R. 1591) whose declared purpose was to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am not sure how our troops are being helped by giving money to peanut farmers in Georgia or spinach farmers in California, or by giving subsidies to milk producers, yet this is just some of what the Democrats in Congress saw fit to include in a war-funding measure.

Congressman Hill's record with regard to earmarks is more sordid still. On Aug. 20, The Courier-Journal published a list of earmarks that Hill had obtained. Calling his office was not necessary.

The Courier did not, however, publish a list of those earmarks he had requested, an important and crucial distinction. They could not do so, as Hill never made them public.

After he was elected in 2006, Baron Hill promised to disclose all of his earmark requests. According to an Indianapolis Star article from April 2, he has since asserted that he misunderstood this promise when he made it and would not disclose them after all. The nonpartisan group Citizens Against Government Waste lists Congressman Hill on its Web site among those that have refused to disclose its earmark requests.

Those earmarks Mr. Hill has made public raise serious questions about his commitment to his promise to clean up Washington. For example, some of the earmarks obtained by Mr. Hill — totaling some $625,000 — go to clients of his former employer, the Washington lobbying firm mCapitol Management. Mr. Hill was a "senior advisor" at mCapitol after he lost the election in 2004 and before he was reelected in 2006.

According to OpenSecrets.org, the Web site of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Congressman Hill's former and now current chief of staff was a registered lobbyist working for mCapitol. One of his former clients has now benefited to the tune of $375,000 from an earmark obtained by Mr. Hill.

It is true that big federal dollars are seldom unwelcome in small communities like those in Southern Indiana, and they can make a big difference. The pool at O'Bannon Woods State Park, for example, was refurbished with help from an earmark obtained by then-Congressman Mike Sodrel.

This, however, is not the point.

The point is that Mr. Hill has steadfastly refused to be transparent on this and other subjects. His Web site even received a failing grade on transparency from the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation. He has not kept his promise to disclose all of his earmark requests. Baron Hill's selection of who has benefited from those earmarks he has obtained is also highly questionable.

Every business, organization, hospital or other group in Southern Indiana would be helped by getting an earmark. This is why it is all the more suspect and worrisome that some of those that have gotten earmarks from Hill have had interesting ties to the Congressman and to his staff.

Right now, Democratic groups are preparing to run ads on television in Kentucky attacking Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Republican. McConnell, they note, obtained an earmark for the lobbying client of a former staffer. Hill, I note, obtained two earmarks for lobbying clients of his former employer.

What is good for Democrats to question about Mitch McConnell should be good for citizens of the Ninth District to question about Baron Hill.

The voters of the Ninth District sent Mr. Hill back to Washington with a mandate for change. The simple fact, however, remains the old cliché: When it comes to Baron Hill, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Scott Fluhr
September 19, 2007

For being a paper run by the family of Frank O'Bannon, I have been impressed with the fairness of the Democrat's staff and editors when it comes to running letters on their opinion page.

At least my letters; the experiences of others with perspectives on the right clearly differs.