So, because I would probably support $951,000 for the Oregon Solar Highway earmark project if I knew its detail and it went through the normal appropriations process, am I suppose to think that putting it in as an earmark is a good idea? I do not. No! And no amount of tweeting can justify it. The earmarking process is a disgrace. It distorts funding priorities, waste public funds, and contributes to public corruption. The Democrats need to put an end to earmarking. This is not the change I voted for.

Dave Porter:

"Earmark" is not a dirty word. It's not pork by definition, either.

Posted by: Dave Porter | Mar 4, 2009 2:37:24 PM So, because I would probably support $951,000 for the Oregon Solar Highway earmark project if I knew its detail and it went through the normal appropriations process, am I suppose to think that putting it in as an earmark is a good idea?

This did go through the normal appropriations process. This is part of the in the omnibus spending bill, not the AARA (i.e. the stimulus package).

Jindal is weird. . . .Doesn’t even look or sound good, to say nothing about content.

And this is coming from Earl Blumenauer, right?

Okay . . .

Posted by: Jack Roberts | Mar 4, 2009 4:26:42 PM And this is coming from Earl Blumenauer, right? Okay . . .

Yes it was. Is there something in what he said you disagree with?

Did you see the train-wreck that was Jindal's response to the Presidents address to Congress last week?

Uh, lestat - you did see what Stewart did to Blumenauer on TDS the other day, right?

I’ll admit to not knowing the facts of the $951,000 for the Oregon Solar Highway. I do not know if it was in the President’s budget (probably not). I do not know if hearings were held on it in the appropriations process (probably no hearings). I do not know if the project takes funds from a national solar power appropriations and targets them for Oregon (perhaps).

So, is it an earmark? From wikipedia (here): “The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.”

And it certainly is “pork,” by most definitions of the term. Again, wikipedia (here):

“Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples.

“Citizens Against Government Waste outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork":

1. Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
2. Not specifically authorized;
3. Not competitively awarded;
4. Not requested by the President;
5. Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
6. Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
7. Serves only a local or special interest.”

So, what are the facts on this bill?

Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Mar 4, 2009 6:02:56 PM

Sure did. I thought it was funny and good sport.

Dave, here is background on the project.

lestatdelc, thanks for the background, although the linked project seems to have funding independent of the federal government (which raises questions about the need for these federal funds). I do support the development of solar energy, both with and without federal funds. What I oppose are "earmarks" and "pork" projects. I think some good projects can come out of an earmarking budgetary process, but it is not the best, or even a good, budget process. Too many bad projects are funded and the potential for corruption, even with more transparency, is too great. The Democrats, as Obama seems inclined to do, should end the practice.

His name is Jon Stewart. John Daly is a golfer.

Posted by: Dave Porter | Mar 4, 2009 11:20:44 PM lestatdelc, thanks for the background, although the linked project seems to have funding independent of the federal government (which raises questions about the need for these federal funds).

Here is how and why Federal government funding is involved in this. From The Oregonian last year:

The Tualatin solar installation started Thursday would not have been possible without federal and state tax credits that give companies breaks for building solar projects. Transportation officials said they rushed to reach an agreement that could be complete by Dec. 31, when a 30 percent federal tax credit is set to expire. Public agencies such as ODOT and non-profits don't pay taxes, so have no use themselves for a tax credit. But they sell the credits to private companies in this case U.S. Bank, which will pay for much of the I-5/I-205 installation and take the tax credit for five years. The Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit covers 50 percent of the cost. A federal tax credit covers 30 percent and offers accelerated depreciation for the solar panel owners. The Energy Trust of Oregon will provide a grant of $175,000, from a fund paid by Oregon electric utility customers.

What's more is that this is on Interstate (Federal highway) right-of-ways.

lestatdelc, I'm still confused. Isn't the federal tax credit of 30% different than the $971,000 federal grant? And to whom did the federal grant go? The earlier links put ownership this way: "SunWay 1, LLC, a limited liability company managed by Portland General Electric, owns and operates this solar power plant."

Posted by: Dave Porter | Mar 5, 2009 1:19:01 PM

I would have to dig in further, but my understanding is, the Fed gave the tax credits to ODOT which then sold it to the private sector to build and run since ODOT doesn't pay any Federal taxes to redeem it with directly, while managing the project.

There was also a bidding process in the contracting out, so that further torpedoes the false "pork" claims about this project. The Senate and House both were on board, appropriation bills must originate with the House (not the White House) etc.