Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is holding up the FY 07 Legislative Branch appropriations bill over an 8 percent increase in Senate spending. According to CongressDailyAM, "Coburn aides and Senate leaders said they hoped to quietly resolve the matter, perhaps by allowing Coburn to offer an amendment to slash the bill's $840 million for Senate offices and expenses -- a $63 million increase over the current year." Coburn stated, "In a time of war, rising gas prices and record deficits, increasing our own budget by an exorbitant amount sends the wrong message to the public".

• Roll Call reports that the Justice Department has broken new ground by charging former congressional staffers-turned-lobbyists Tony Rudy and Neil Volz with violating the one-year ban on lobbying their former employers.
• The Los Angeles Times provides more information on the close relationship between former OMB and GSA employee David Safavian and criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff. We are also reminded, through Safavian's emails, that Safavian never stops kissing up to Abramoff ("Let me know if there is ANYTHING I can do to help.")
• The Hill reports that 40 percent of earmarks would go unmarked and unnoticed thanks to loopholes in the lobbying and ethics "reform" bills passed by the Senate and the House.
• Top Bush donor Tom Noe wants to change his "not guilty" plea to a "guilty" plea in a case where he is charged with illegally funnelling money to the President's campaign, according to the Associated Press.
• The Washington Times interviews anti-pork crusader Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).
  

• Josh Marshall looks into how Shirlington Limousines came to be connected to alleged-briber Brent Wilkes. The "missing link" appears to be former Rep. Bill Lowery (R-CA), who is now a lobbyist with close ties to Appropriations chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA).
• Following the money doesn't have to be limited to politics and the Episcopal Diocese of Washington has shown how to follow the money in the religious arena.
• Captain Ed is disheartened by the failure of Coburn's amendments to strip pork from the emergency supplemental. When talking about the Northrop Grumman earmark he asks the question that we all have in our head when thinking this, "Why does a corporation that made $2.4 billion in profit need another $200 million from American taxpayers to cover a loss they've absorbed in that same year?" Amen.
• citizen dc at Daily Kos writes about Karl Rove's "unexplained personal wealth". It is quite strange that a man who doesn't make so much money happens to own million dollar homes.
  

The Washington Post writes a profile of anti-pork Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) crusade to cut earmarks out of the emergency spending supplemental before the Senate. Only one of his amendments were ultimately successful and the lack of majority support from either party led him to withdraw many of his amendments challenging the earmarks. One of his challenges was to a $500 million earmark to aid rebuilding of a Northrop Grumman shipbuilding yard in Mississippi. The Wall Street Journal reports that the vote was 51-47 with both parties evenly dividing. One of the few successul amendments aimed at controlling spending was introduced by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and co-sponsord by Coburn. The amendment restricts the number of no-bid contracts for rebuilding in the Gulf Coast and was agreed to with a 98-0 vote.

This is shaping up to be earmark week in both Houses of Congress. Right now Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is decrying the earmarking practice on the Senate floor in the debate over the pork-laden emergency supplemental for Iraq and rebuilding after the twin Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Christian Science Monitor and the New York Times both have articles about pork projects and earmarks today. In the CS Monitor Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) says, "It's our only chance to maintain the majority. It really is," probably refering to a recent poll that shows that prohibiting members from "directing federal funds to specific projects benefiting only certain constituents," is one of the chief concerns of voters.

I've previously written about my misgivings about this poll. I believe this poll is similar to polls which show that the public believes that Congress is completely corrupt, but not their representative or Senator. A man in Nebraska interviewed in the New York Times makes my point for me, "I am critical of the fact that the federal government is worried about paying for parking garages — and for a million other things like that ... But they are. And if they are, I want my senator to be in there. I want Nebraska to compete." And it's not just residents who don't really mind the pork, the lawmakers like it too, and use it to sway votes. The National Journal's Stan Collender states that in the current era of narrow majority rule earmarks and pet projects are necessary to maintain control of your caucus:

In an era of narrow majorities in both houses, when a handful of votes can make the difference between legislative success and failure, earmarks are an even more important way of doing business in Congress today than they have been in the past. They are now a key tool to getting anything done and eliminating them will make it even harder to get majority support.

This points directly to one of the great fallacies of the current discussion about eliminating or limiting earmarks. In spite of all of the attention earmarks have received this year, there is not a great deal of support for doing anything about them. Just the opposite is true: most members of Congress don't want them limited and will fight hard to make sure it does not happen.

Very few of the players in the House and Senate stand to gain anything if the limits under discussion are adopted. The White House and leadership will reduce their ability to attract the additional votes they need to accomplish their legislative agendas. The appropriations committees will reduce their power because one of the few things they have to trade will be taken away. Individual members of Congress will find that their ability to deliver things for their constituents will be reduced substantially.

Certainly the leadership of both parties know this and are wary of those pushing to restrict the earmarking process. I think what would work best would be full transparency of earmarks followed by a peer-review process. Watching the current attempts by Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) attempt to strip earmark provisions out of the supplemental truly shows the merits of this process. Not only are these appropriations open to debate on the floor but the author must stand up and defend the appropriation. It is an ideal process for debating the merits and motives of a particuar line item. Perhaps with a little sunlight we wouldn't have members like Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Pete Visclosky (D-IN) earmarking funds for campaign contributors, nor would we have jailed-Rep. Duke Cunningham's shady earmarks going without notice.