Patterico's Pontifications

11/25/2007

Alaskan Earmarks and the GOP

Filed under: Government — DRJ @ 12:33 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

There are many reasons Republicans have a steep hill to climb to gain control of Congress and the White House in 2008. One of the biggest problems that faces the GOP is its members’ fondness for earmarks. Remember the “Bridge to Nowhere” and it’s companion bridge dubbed “Don Young’s Way?”

Now Alaska’s Rep. Don Young has another, smaller earmark that illustrates why many voters don’t trust Republicans to be good stewards of public funds:

“Some of the toughest money in America is made fishing for king and snow crab in the tempestuous Bering Sea. But some crab boat owners also do well on the opposite coast in Washington, D.C.

A case in point is an arcane section written into a bill Congress passed in December, just hours before adjourning for the year. President Bush signed the bill into law about a month later. Section 122 of the act, an updated version of the nation’s main ocean fisheries law, gives three fishing companies — and only three — the right to exchange certain rights to catch and process Bering Sea crab for a new and potentially more profitable kind of right. The change could lower the costs of running crab boats and hauling catches to an onshore processing plant.

The three companies — Yardarm Knot, Blue Dutch and Trident Seafoods — are all headed by people who have made substantial political contributions to U.S. Rep. Don Young, the Alaska Republican who inserted Section 122 into the legislation. Two of the companies, Yardarm Knot and Trident, also have long-standing ties with Young and U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, employing firms with lobbyists who used to work as aides to the two lawmakers. Yardarm also has paid the senator’s son, Ben Stevens, for consulting and business services while he was a state legislator.

Some competing seafood companies fought the section, but their managers declined to discuss their complaints publicly.”

The Anchorage Daily News’ article describes how Young’s earmark benefits these three Alaskan companies:

“According to a NMFS analysis, the law qualifies just three seafood companies to convert their existing crab fishery shares into a new type — one that will allow them to catch as well as process crab aboard boats equipped to do both jobs. Such a consolidated operation could save the three crab producers sizable costs. For instance, they don’t need to run separate boats to catch crab and haul them to port for processing in a packing house.

Crab rights also can be sold or leased, and the combo catch and processing quota created under Section 122 likely would be worth up to 25 percent more than straight catch quota, said Jeff Osborn of Dock Street Brokers in Seattle.”

The biggest complaints about Young’s earmark involve the way it was inserted at the last minute without oversight or comment:

“Craig Holman, of the congressional watchdog group Public Citizen, said Section 122 is the same kind of earmarking tactic that has stirred lots of trouble recently for Young on bills that benefited associates or campaign contributors elsewhere in the country.

The provision smacks of political favoritism, sidestepped the normal process for changing federal fishery rules, wasn’t subject to a public debate or hearing, and was inserted into a major bill at the last minute, he said. “This section is typical of Don Young-style legislating,” Holman said. “He appears to view his role on Capitol Hill as protecting the interests of those who will give him campaign contributions.”
***
Normally, the Anchorage-based North Pacific Fishery Management Council helps make changes in federal fisheries management off Alaska. But Young’s Section 122, amounting to about a page and a half in a 91-page act, never got a council review.

That troubles Kodiak fisherman Terry Haines, who said vessel crewmen often have been ignored or disadvantaged when corporate fishing companies lobby policy-makers for changes in fishing rules. The Young provision, he said, should have been subject to a public review “simply to avoid any appearance of impropriety and to give other stakeholders a chance to be involved.”

The companies say they did not lobby for the change in the law and one noted the change “helped everyone.” I’m sure it’s a complicated issue and it may be that the change is a good idea, but it’s not my idea of the way government should work.

— DRJ

9 Responses to “Alaskan Earmarks and the GOP”

  1. There was a similar thing done about 20 years ago that affected all the military folks when they bought uniform items such as patches, stripes, insignias, etc. There used to be a couple of companies and one offered pretty low prices on stripes – good news for junior enlisted. Then Sen Bradley intereceded to make only one company (from New Jersey) the allowed supplier of military uniform items. It became law and the other company went away while the price on most items doubled.

    I agree it is not the way it should work.

    voiceofreason (388d74)

  2. Alaskans dont like enviromentalists many consiter GREENPEACE PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER 1

    krazy kagu (bab2f6)

  3. this is a great reason not to vote for any incumbents.

    remember the party of small government?

    joe (c0e4f8)

  4. don young is a great source for laughs, scroll down to the fun facts on this wiki page.

    assistant devil's advocate (b24afd)

  5. From the Whackoffpedia entry ada linked to: “Merchants of (retail) death Beretta and Winchester, the National Rifle Association, Wal-Mart and outfitters Cabela’s and Bass Pro Shops sponsored the Congressional shootout and schmoozeathon.” Super-credible, unbiased writing there.

    nk (09a321)

  6. nk is certainly entitled to an editorial opinion, as is whackoffpedia, but the underlying facts seem not to be in dispute. as ronald reagan observed, facts are stupid things.

    assistant devil's advocate (b24afd)

  7. Yeah, nk, that sounds too close to the NY Times or the LA Times writing for my blood. Were there ever a more blatant example of why wiki is most certainly NOT a source, that is it.

    JD (33beff)

  8. it’s not my idea of the way government should work. –DRJ

    Hmmm. It’s how government does work, though. Give money to Don Young (Murtha, Reid, Jefferson, Cunningham, Pelosi — any of them, really, all 435 Congressthings and 100 of Caligula’s Cavalry are for sale — and money comes back to you. And just as importantly, as in this case, it doesn’t come back to your competitors who were not so wise as to steer their bribes contributions to Don Young (et al.).

    Local governments, the same thing. Look how the SC supreme court just rejiggered the bar exam in order to turn some local pol’s airhead daughter’s grade from the deserved “fail” to the daddy’s-girl “pass.” That also sends a loud message to anyone who has to deal with the law in SC that it isn’t a level playing field, but the same kind of corrupt kleptocracy the legal establishment always seems to decay into, left to its own devices.

    Nobody goes into government for “Public Service.” There’s a reason that something like four of Harry Reid’s five kids are lobbyists, entirely dependent on the pork dear old Dad shovels to them.

    There’s only one party, the Incumbents.

    Kevin R.C. O'Brien (742f73)

  9. We can talk all we want to about how things are, and how they should be. But, unless we’re committed to actually doing something about it, what we are left with is just words.

    A VERY liberal friend of a liberal friend of mine (one of the few I have left as I have descended into curmudgeonry) said it succinctly (I think she has read too much Mao):
    Words are for discussions; Bullets are for change!

    There is still the opportunity to change the direction that government is going. But, if all we do is talk about the loss of the Republic, and are unwilling to avail ourselves of the constitutional proceedures for regaining control of our government; then, we are just as bad as the characters in Julius Caesar who stood around the Senate bemoaning the actions of Caesar, but comfortable in their privilege.

    Eventually, to effect change will require a very steep price. Some were willing to pay it in 1775, but not all were (will the Tories please stand up).

    Another Drew (8018ee)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0881 secs.