District Liked Its Earmarks, Then Elected Someone Who Didn’t

Posted by reteaparty Finance Saturday, February 5th, 2011

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ, The New York Times

In the villages, towns and cities of the 19th Congressional District north of New York City, the signs of federal largess are all over: money for a library in South Salem, road improvements in Peekskill, renovations on an aging bridge in Dover and a communications network for the Police Department in Tuxedo.

The projects have drawn strong support from community activists, business leaders and local politicians of both major parties. But the stream of federal money that has long financed such projects, in this Hudson Valley district and elsewhere in the nation, is about to dry up.

And some residents of the district may be surprised to learn who one of the main instigators is: Nan Hayworth, the district’s new representative, who was swept into office last fall along with other Tea Party-backed candidates bent on changing Washington’s ways.

Congress, prodded by outspoken newcomers like Ms. Hayworth, this week essentially imposed a temporary ban on earmarks, money for projects that individual lawmakers slip into major Congressional budget bills to cater to local demands. The criticism that she and her colleagues level at earmarking is not new: that some of the projects are silly and the process is rife with waste and abuse, partly because lawmakers do not typically have to justify their requests in grant proposals, hearings and the like.

But the moratorium about to take effect has transformed a largely abstract policy debate in Washington into something very tangible for people in Ms. Hayworth’s district.

Now, civic activists, local officials and residents are scratching their heads, unpersuaded about the soundness of scrapping a system that has provided the district with money for libraries, parks, roads, bridges and the like.

Ken Schmitt, the Republican supervisor of Carmel, supported Ms. Hayworth in her campaign. But he is among many in the district who can point to benefits that earmarks provided his town: nearly $150,000 to buy high-technology cameras for police cruisers in 2009.

“Do I support banning them completely? No, I don’t,” Mr. Schmitt said, adding that each project should be considered on its own merits.

Steve Axinn, the president of Lake Oscawana Civic Association, agreed. “Not all earmarks are the same,” he said. “There are some that are good and some that are clearly abusive. It is the responsibility of our elected representatives to know the difference.”

Mr. Axinn, a lawyer who is registered as a Democrat, knows a good bit about the subject. He was instrumental in persuading Ms. Hayworth’s predecessor, John Hall, a Democrat, to deliver $400,000 in earmark financing to reduce the high levels of phosphorous in Lake Oscawana in Putnam Valley.

“This was a good thing that could not have been done without that grant,” he said.

Ms. Hayworth is unconvinced. “I am not questioning the worthiness of filtering Lake Oscawana,” she said in a recent interview. But, she asked, “Is this a project to which federal tax dollars should be directed, or is this a project another authority should be responsible for?”

To read more, visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/nyregion/05earmarks.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

Short URL: https://reteaparty.com/?p=244