Geee Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Washington Examiner: It's not news that presidents from both political parties have used well-timed decisions on federal grant applications to help persuade recalcitrant senators and representatives to vote for bills they would otherwise oppose. The usual tactic involved giving advance word of a grant decision to a favored senator or representative, who then took credit for "bringing home the bacon." The participants were careful not to be too blatant about what had happened behind the scenes -- namely, that federal tax dollars had been awarded in return for promised votes in Congress. But now along comes the Heritage Foundation's Lachlan Markay who has demonstrated how President Obama has taken the practice of buying votes with federal grants to a whole new level. And we're not just talking about the infamous "Cornhusker Bargain" and "Louisiana Purchase" deals that won over Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of the Bayou state for Obamacare. Using data from grants.gov, Markay found that the number of grants awarded soared between May 2009 and March 2010 in the weeks immediately prior to congressional votes on three key Obama proposals -- Obamacare, cap-and-trade, and Dodd-Frank financial reform. Not only did the number of grants suddenly go up, there was strong evidence of a pattern of federal funds going to recipients in the districts of swing votes in Congress. "At least 32 vulnerable House Democrats received significant federal grant money in the periods leading up to or directly after their votes on at least one of these three pieces of legislation, raising concerns that those grants may have been used either to encourage or reward votes in favor of the administration's position," Markay said. He also noted that a month after the March 2010 Obamacare vote, the Congressional Research Service reported that "both the number and value of earmarks requested solely by the president increased since FY 2008." According to the CRS report, there was a 54 percent increase in presidential earmarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now