Sunday, Dec. 25, 2005 | 7:45 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- This was supposed to be a belt-tightening year in Congress, when lawmakers made sharp cuts in spending and boldly slashed the deficit. The way a few lawmakers were talking, states would be lucky to get a few lumps of coal in their stockings by the end of a lean budget year.
So they were gleeful to hear that even taxpayer watchdog groups are offering tentative early praise for their efforts -- in some cases -- to cut back on special projects for their states.
But they also note that lawmakers pushed through money for thousands of goodies for their home districts. So while states -- Nevada very much included -- suffered some reductions, they continued to reap billions of dollars for special projects earmarked in the budget.
Money will gush from Washington to the Silver State for earmarked projects ranging from a Pahrump fairground ($300,000) to an underage drinking program in Henderson ($50,000) and a 15-mile trail north of the Black Rock Desert ($450,000).
"Getting between a lawmaker and an earmark is like getting between a Rottweiler and a steak," said Keith Ashdown, whose watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense is analyzing this year's spending bills. "It's not pretty, and it's pretty dangerous."
Critics of earmarks -- citations that set aside specific amounts of money for certain state projects in the 13 annual spending bills that fuel the federal government -- acknowledge that some are worthy expenditures.
But they derisively label many as "pork," especially if the earmarks are attached to spending bills outside the regular appropriations process, which includes congressional hearings. Critics also generally call it pork if federal taxpayers foot the bill for suspiciously local projects such as a sporting event, school music program or museum exhibit.
Of course, lawmakers still scramble every year to secure earmarks and boast of them when they stump around their districts.
A Sun review of Nevada earmarks in several appropriations bills for the last three years, provided by four of the five Nevada lawmakers, revealed that the appropriations season in Congress for the 2006 fiscal year was not especially tight for Nevada compared with the previous two years.
For example, Republican Rep. Jon Porter secured $55.8 million worth of projects in the energy and water appropriations bill for 2006, compared to no money last year, and $10.6 million in 2004.
And for Democrat Harry Reid, long the state's top pork producer, had an especially lucrative year. He secured $100 million for Nevada in the 2006 military construction bill, compared with $17.5 million last year; $61.3 million in the transportation bill versus $9.8 million last year; and $379 million in the energy and water bill versus $220 million last year.
Those were the perks of Reid's new job this year as Senate minority leader, aides said.
"It is not a coincidence," Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. "Sen. Reid is the Democratic leader and a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, which puts him in a key position to help Nevada."
Reid also is the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee that doles out big money for energy- and water-related projects. Reid for 2006 secured $95 million for Walker Lake programs in Mineral County alone, $58 million for Army Corps of Engineers programs and nearly $49 million for Bureau of Reclamation programs in the state.
But Nevada lawmakers said it was generally tougher this year, as Congress felt the squeeze of public pressure to cut spending. In some cases they brought home less than the previous two years.
Porter and fellow Republican Jim Gibbons secured less than they did last year in the defense and transportation bills, for example.
"It was definitely a tighter year," Gibbons spokeswoman Amy Maier said.
Amid a more restrictive budget climate, it likely will be even tougher for Nevada next year, Porter said.
"I assume we'll continue to have a battle," Porter said.
Lawmakers in general found themselves in an increasingly intense predicament this year: Voters wanted Congress to cut the deficit. But they also wanted better highways, water projects and veterans services.
"I really believe that taxpayers are fed up with government waste," Porter said. "The problem is, the taxpayer wants to make sure he gets his fair share."
No one in Congress better demonstrated this prickly position this year than Sen. John Ensign. Ensign was a leader of seven Senate Republicans who called themselves the "Fiscal Watch Team," calling for drastic reductions in earmarks.
But Ensign also helped secure lots of money for the state, including a drinking water system in Carson City ($50,000), Lahontan Cutthroat Trout restoration ($500,000) and U.S. 95 widening and interchange work ($7 million).
Ensign was the only Nevada lawmaker who did not provide the Sun with a list of earmarks he had secured this year.
In an interview, Ensign acknowledged that he was in an awkward position, both snatching up money for Nevada while preaching a message of fiscal restraint.
As long as other lawmakers are gobbling up money for their states, lawmakers feel obligated to get their slice of the pie, he said.
"I only put forward things that were very important," Ensign said. But he was quick to add, "I think we need to reprioritize how we are spending precious taxpayer dollars."
Ensign said new emphasis this year on fiscal accountability had resulted in fewer earmarks.
"Overall, the entire budget -- no, it wasn't a tight year, but it was on the things that lawmakers get re-elected on."
Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley lashed out at her Republican colleagues' spending priorities.
"I don't think there is any fiscal responsibility going on, or belt-tightening, despite the rhetoric on the Republican side of the aisle," Berkley said.
But she expressed no regrets about her own earmarking of money for Nevada for road and transit projects, and for her role in helping funnel money to the veterans hospital and clinic planned for North Las Vegas.
"I make no apologies for securing those earmarks that I think are important for the people I represent," Berkley said.
In fact, she said, Nevada lawmakers had done "reasonably well" securing money for the state this year. She said she wanted even more, especially for school programs.
Critics should not begrudge Nevada its projects, given its growth, Berkley argued.
"I would challenge anyone to say that Nevada veterans don't need a new hospital and a long-term health care clinic, or that the state doesn't need any of the road projects that were in the transportation bill," she said.
It soon may be revealed that the amount of money spent on appropriations earmarks in 2006 may have dipped, said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, which is analyzing the bills. But a few bills may actually contain more pork than last year, he said.
The group Taxpayers for Common Sense noted that the 2006 defense spending bill, approved Wednesday, appears to contain more "parochial and politically motivated" earmarks than the record 2,671 in the 2005 bill, which totaled $12.2 billion.
Fiscal hawks in Congress, including Ensign's group, made some progress this year drawing attention to the need to rein in spending, Schatz said.
"Given that it's an election year (next year), there could be pressure to increase earmarks," Schatz said. "But there could be even more pressure, on Republicans in particular, to show that they are doing something about the pork and the waste."
Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at grove@ lasvegassun.com.
archive
