Lets review what the press has said about Hal Rogers Pork

[Jack Oneil]

It might be helpful to review some of the past articles that have appeared in the media about Hal Roger's pork barrel spending over the last decade. Some folks might not have been seen these articles and I thought it would be helpful to voters for them to be reviewed.

If you have an article to share just be sure and post a link to it for reference.


Here is one I found from a while back that was published by USNews.

Representative Harold Rogers (R-KY-5th): As ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Homeland Security, Rep. Harold Rogers was responsible for the $41.1 billion Department of Homeland Security budget. Rogers has a history of steering earmarks to campaign contributors and those who fund his travel.  In 2009, it was reported that Rogers steered $30 million in earmarks to companies that donated $48,000 to his political committees. The most egregious case, though, was his earmark of ID cards to a company that paid for 11 trips for Rogers and his wife to Hawaii, Ireland, California, and other locations even though the earmark was opposed by the Bush Administration, the Republican Chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and industry leaders. The congressman, who was described as the “prince of pork” by his hometown paper, has repeatedly taken official actions on behalf of the top contributor to his PAC, even sponsoring an earmark for a private parking lot in a resort owned by one of his large donors, and even helped secure a $4 million contract for a company while they hired his son. [New York Times, 5/14/06; McClatchy, 4/19/09; Associated Press, 1/19/05; Lexington Herald Leader; 1/19/05].

http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/03/10/democrats-release-gop-hypocrite-list.html

[Jack Oneil]

Here is one from the September 19, 2007 Richmond Register. This article is a double whammy because it also shines a light on Mitch McConnell.







McConnell, Rogers on ‘Most Corrupt’ list

U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and U.S. Rep. Harold “Hal” Rogers, R-5th District, have made it onto a national “Top 22” list that does not necessarily deem distinction.

“Beyond DeLay: The 22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (And Two to Watch),” was released Tuesday by CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington).

The third annual report can be viewed at www.beyonddelay.org. The site offers short summaries of each member’s transgressions, full-length profiles and all accompanying documentation.

Reports for McConnell and Rogers are similar in that they claim each was using his power in government to benefit themselves, their families and their campaigns.

Most of the report’s accusations against McConnell can be traced back to his former chief legal council, G. Hunter Bates, who served McConnell from 1997-2002. Bates, of Louisville, is chairman of the Eastern Kentucky University Board of Regents.

He later formed Bates Capitol Group LLC (or “Bates Capitol) and clients included: E-Cavern, Voice for Humanity, Appriss Inc. and Boardpoint LLC, all of which have received (funding) earmarks from McConnell, according to CREW’s report.

“All of these companies have made substantial contributions to Sen. McConnell’s campaigns,” the report states. It also accuses the Bates Capitol Group of hiring former McConnell staffers including: Holly Piper, wife of Sen. McConnell’s chief of staff Bill Piper, and former McConnell aides Patrick Jennings and Lesley Elliot.

One thing that concerns Don Stewart, a press secretary for McConnell, is the timeline of the allegations.

“All the things they mention (in the report) are from 2002 or prior,” Stewart said. “It makes you wonder why this year, the year they happen to be up for re-election.

“I think this list is made up of 18 Republicans and four Democrats,” Stewart said. “My guess is that there is some kind of coincidence here. I think most of the people on (the list) are up for re-election.”

The CREW report insists that “Rep. Rogers’ ethics issues stem from misuse of his position to steer millions of dollars in earmarks to campaign contributors, including a company that employs his son.”

The full report includes these accusations: “In 2004, a Virginia-based company, BearingPoint, selected Senture, a call-center service provider, to set up a call center for a test of a prototype transportation worker card. Just before the contract was awarded, Senture hired Rep. Rogers’ son John as a computer systems administrator.

Then in 2003, Senture won an unrelated $4 million contract with DHS to field calls from truckers. Between 2002 and 2005, officials from Senture, BearingPoint and its lobbyist, Van Scoyoc, donated $41,989 to Rep. Rogers’ campaign committee and PAC.”

Rogers may have violated the bribery statute and/or received illegal gratuities and violated House ethics rules, according to the report.

Rogers could not be reached Tuesday for comment.

“Every year CREW creates this compendium of corruption to expose and hold accountable those members of Congress who believe they are above the law,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW. “With the third edition of Beyond DeLay it has become abundantly clear that many public officials believe that the rules don’t apply to them.”

Along with McConnell and Rogers, others among the “corrupted” list include: Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif.; Sen. Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M.; Rep. John T. Doolittle, R-Calif.; Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla.; Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.; Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Rep. William J. Jefferson, D-La.; Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.; Rep. Gary G. Miller, R-Calif.; Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, D-W.Va.; Rep. Timothy F. Murphy, R-Pa.; Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa.; Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M.; Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.; Rep. David Scott, D-Ga.; Rep. Don Young, R-Ark.; Rep. Jerry Weller, R-Ill.; and Rep. Heather A. Wilson, R-N.M.

The two who received the title of “Dishonorable Mention” (And Two to Watch) were Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Sen. David Vitter, R-La.

Visit www.beyonddelay.org for more details and to review full reports about each senator and representative on the CREW list.

CREW is a non-profit, legal “watchdog” group concerned with governmental accountability. Visit www.citizensforethics.org for more information about the organization.

The report stated: “Sadly, despite an election in which Democrats ran on a platform of eradicating the “culture of corruption” and the fact that voters overwhelmingly turned against members with ethics problems, very little appears to have changed. Members of both parties have boasted of Congress’ progress on this front, yet only tepid ethics reforms were passed and no new enforcement mechanisms were added.

“The bi-partisan House ethics task force, originally charged with reporting back by May 1, 2007, has yet to issue any recommendations, and the ethics committees in both Houses remain loathe to consider the unethical conduct of their colleagues unless, of course, gay sex is involved as we learned watching the Senate Republicans’ radically disparate treatment of the crimes committed by Sen. Craig and Sen. Vitter.

“As we said last year, if Congress is not going to police itself — and the evidence continues to demonstrate that it is not — the ethics committees should be disbanded and the charade ended. Thankfully, the Department of Justice does not share Congress’s willful myopia to corruption.”

To create this report, CREW stated that it reviewed news media articles, Federal Election Commission reports, court documents and members’ personal financial and travel disclosure forms. “We then analyzed that information in light of federal laws and regulations as well as congressional ethics rules.”

http://richmondregister.com/localnews/x155232819/McConnell-Rogers-on-Most-Corrupt-list

[Jack Oneil]

Here is an article from CBS news from May 17 2006.


Hal Rogers: A Congressional Disgrace
National Review Online: Kentucky Congressman Abuses His Power

Harold Rogers, the smooth-talking Republican congressman from Kentucky, has emerged in recent weeks as an exemplary figure of congressional disgrace. Private companies have courted his favor with political donations, golf excursions, and exotic vacations — and he, in turn, has channeled millions of taxpayer dollars in their direction. From his powerful position as chairman of the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, he has plied constituents and corporations alike with funds from the national treasury. It is the work of the likes of Hal Rogers that has driven Congress' approval rating to 22 percent — and if more people knew of him, that number would only sink lower.

As the man in charge of Congress’s homeland-security budget, Rogers’s abuse of federal funds is not just a financial scandal — it is a matter of national security. Instead of directing his budget with the sole aim of providing for the public defense, he has turned the power of his position to his benefit — and, by extension, to the benefit of the companies who finance him and the local constituents who keep him in office.

As The New York Times recently recounted, lawmakers decided in 2002 to implement a standardized, tamper-proof, biometric ID card that would be issued to transportation workers nationwide. Rogers took this as an opportunity, inserting language into appropriations bills requiring that the new ID card rely on old technology that was produced at a plant in his district. Frustrated Homeland Security officials had to endure a lengthy delay and pay $4 million for a comparison study to show that the technology they preferred was superior to the one required by Rogers.

As the new ID card was developed and tested, Rogers kept up his meddling. He required that the new-technology production sites be relocated in Kentucky, and he helped award millions of dollars in contracts to various Kentucky companies that had together donated around $100,000 to his political campaigns. One of these companies employed Rogers' son as a computer-systems administrator.

When Homeland Security officials decided that transportation workers would have to undergo background checks before being issued their new ID cards, Rogers again sprang into action. He stuck an earmark into an appropriations bill, mandating that a no-bid contract be given to the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) to handle the background-check operation at a price of tens of millions of dollars.

The Times reports that since 2000, the AAAE has paid for trips for Rogers and his wife totaling more than $75,000, "including six visits to Hawaii, four to California, and one to Ireland." In addition, the group has donated around $18,000 to Rogers' political campaigns in the last four years, and, in 2002, it honored him with its Congressional Leadership Award.

Rogers and his staff maintain that the earmark for the AAAE was motivated purely by considerations of speed and convenience. But since when have those things mattered to Rogers? His interference in this matter has only delayed the implementation of the new ID cards.

A public outcry has caused the AAAE's no-bid deal to be rescinded. Various companies will now have a chance to bid on the contract, which we hope will be awarded on the basis of merit.

But Rogers' disgrace cannot be rescinded, and it stands as a reminder of the need for congressional earmark reform. The House leadership deserves credit for already pushing one such reform, but there is still a long way to go. The power of lawmakers to direct public funds to private recipients with little oversight is a great facilitator of corruption. If anyone wonders why many conservatives recoil in disgust from the current Congress, look no further than Chairman Rogers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/17/opinion/main1624835.shtml

[oldvet]

WOW!

[Jack Oneil]

I know these article are long and some folks may not want to read them all. My point is these are not just things everyone in the 5th distrit needs to be aware of, these are things every single person needs to understand fully so they can cast an informed vote in this next election. I can promise you one thing folks, the people who are profiting from this type of favoritism understand theses subjects very well and they are counting on most of the voters to not care enough to read this stuff and do something about it.

Here is a great article written by Tim Wiseman that shows how the money flows into the 5th district through door, and then back out another door and right in the pockets of people who often don't even live here.

This is from the Sunlight Blog on May 21 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Sunlight Foundation Intern, Tim Wiseman

Thanks to online resources, basic watchdogging is now so easy, an intern could do it. Unfortunately, complete and total answers about lawmakers and their activities are still elusive, whether you are an intern, a  journalist or anyone else. I learned these facts firsthand while spending some of my internship researching the earmark requests of Rep. Hal Rogers (KY-5).

The 22-page PDF of earmarks that Rogers posted to his Web site caught my eye, and not just because it was sideways. Looking through the list of 103 earmarks, which totaled $446 million, I found some names familiar to me from reading Sunlight’s Real Time Investigations blog. Outdoor Venture Corp. and Phoenix Products were in the running for earmarks again ($16 million for each). In late 2007, the Real Time Investigations blog had reported on the two Kentucky firms’ booming earmark business and their connections to Rogers, and more recent data showed those ties remained strong.

Additionally, earmarks for some non-profit organizations stood out since all are based in Rogers’ small hometown of Somerset, Ky.:

    * A $15 million request for the National Institute for Hometown Security, which had received an $11 million earmark in 2008
    * $2 million in requests for the Center for Rural Development
    * A $1 million request for the SEKTDA (South and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association)
    * A $13.75 million equest for Operation UNITE (Unlawful Narcotics Investigations, Treatment and Education)
    * A $10 million request for Eastern Kentucky PRIDE (Personal Responsibility in a Desirable Environment)
    * $1 million request for SEKTDA (South and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association)
    * $500,000 request for SKED (Southeast Kentucky Economic Development Corporation).

In relatively little time, I had gone from scanning the list of earmark requests from Rogers’ Web site to clicking my way to finding connections to past earmarks and donors. While I was using spare moments to do this online research, the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader (my hometown paper) was undertaking a similar effort, eventually publishing a front-page overview of Rogers’ 2009 earmark requests. The article offered basically the same information as I had found, but with a few comments – including some from Real Time Investigations’ Bill Allison – about the earmark requests and earmarks in general.

“You’re using federal money to create organizations that wouldn’t exist,” Allison told the Herald-Leader. “They’re hiring people — sometimes bringing in political supporters. Sometimes (those supporters) promote the lawmaker as much as the group because they’re out in the community and people identify the group with the member. It amplifies the member and it raises a lot of questions.”

Since the Herald-Leader article left those questions hanging, I tried to find out more about those organizations, especially the National Institute for Hometown Security (NIHS), which Rogers had praised in a subsequent article in the (Somerset, Ky.) Commonwealth Journal.

“Unelected and uninformed editorial boards, such as the Herald-Leader, do not represent the interests of my district,” Rogers told the Commonwealth Journal. “These ‘vague non-profits’ that the Herald lampoons are very real and have made a measurable impact on people’s lives. To denigrate the organizations is to denigrate the tens of thousands of Fifth District residents who have poured their sweat, blood, and tears into making them a success.”

While I had hoped to discover the “measurable impact” of these organizations, I found more dead-ends. Using Guidestar.org (free registration required), I downloaded 990 forms filed by the NIHS and the Center for Rural Development (CRD). These forms give a basic overview of the organizations: general spending and revenue categories/totals, salaries of top employees, mission statements, etc.

The NIHS declared its mission is “1) to provide national leadership in discovering and developing community-based critical infrastructure, 2) facilitate the commercialization of these solutions, and 3) encourage the deployment of these solutions.” The CRD declared that its mission is “to provide economic development to Southeastern Kentucky.”

The 990 form showed a majority of NIHS’s 2007 spending going out of Rogers’ district, such as $238,449 to Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C., for legal service, $497,246 to G & H International, also of Washington, D.C., for “management support services” and $530,786 to the Center for Technology Commercialization of Westborough, Mass., for “management support services.” NIHS spent $2.6 million total in fiscal year 2007, so I was curious about this spending pattern as well as the reason behind the jumps in earmarks – $11 million received in 2008, and now $15 million more requested in 2009. I also noticed that James Egnew, president of Outdoor Venture, was a member of the NIHS board, a connection I would have liked to explain.

The Web sites of both organizations did not do much to clarify those generic statements, or to answer the questions I had about budgets, etc. The sites provided press releases and “success stories” – many featuring quotes from, or photos of, Rogers – but little that demonstrated a truly “measurable impact.” There was information about the Rogers Scholar and the Rogers Scholars at the CRD Web site, and at the NIHS site, there was news about addditional funding for a “Milk Transport Security Project.” Again, I found little to explain or to help me understand the “measurable impact” of the organizations.

“There’s no question that those dollars have some positive impact in these areas,” Dr. Ken Troske, an economist at the University of Kentucky who has studies rural development, told me. “But you should talk about maximizing the effect of those dollars and that might mean not spending them there.”

Generally, Troske said there is often little evaluation when it comes to these type of rural development or non-profit programs, and those lists of grants or scholarship winners don’t count.

“That’s not analysis,” he said. “They aren’t looking at what the situation might have been had there been no federal money spent; they aren’t looking at how and why this money may have had a impact.”

While I had been able to track down Troske in Australia, I had less luck speaking with anyone in Somerset, Ky. I called the NIHS, but I bounced around the organization’s phone tree before leaving messages in the mailbox of President Ewell Balltrip. As of this posting, I have not heard from him. Only recently did I find staff e-mail information on the NIHS site; I am waiting for a response.

My calls to the CRD were not returned, nor were their staff e-mail addresses available online. Yesterday, I received an e-mail to the one I submitted through the CRD’s generic Web form. The response, however, was a copy of a recent promotional magazine produced by the CRD. I responded and hope to learn more, but weeks after beginning my search, I have made little progress.

In the first minutes of my search, online transparency tools brought information instantly to my cubicle. That information – on donors, on earmarks, etc. -  is valuable, but it also prompts more questions. Perhaps the NIHS and the CRD have the answers to these questions, and they very well could, but they certainly aren’t promoting it on their Web sites or eager to chat about it with inquiring interns. That’s far from transparent, and more than anything, it’s just frustrating for anyone – intern or not – who wants answers about the government’s impact at a local level.

http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/05/21/online-resources-can-make-interns-watchdogs-too/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Jack Oneil]

Another well written online source "The Transparent Nevada Blog" has this to say about Hal Rogers earmarks and their undeniable connection to him as campaign donors.

This is from April 21 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Hal Rogers: King of the Earmarks
Most people are against earmarks abuse in the abstract, but this piece will give you concrete examples of what kinds of abuse are possible.

Following new rules that govern the earmarking process, a spotlight has landed on KY-5 Representative Hal Rogers. Despite burying his requested earmarks deep in his website, orientated sideways and unsearchable, it becomes clear that Rogers wants little more than to "bring home the bacon" to his south Kentucky district.

Some examples?

    Those requests include more than $40 million for programs that Rogers either created directly or are housed in Rogers' hometown of Somerset at the Center for Rural Development, a sprawling, state-of-the-art facility that locals call the "Taj-Ma Hal."


    The National Institute for Hometown Security, a non-profit organization that Rogers helped create and has few staffers, is slated to net $15 million "to continue to provide leadership in discovering and developing community based critical infrastructure protections solutions."


That last sentence really doubles down on the buzzwords, doesn't it?

    Rogers' earmark requests include $6 million to Somerset-based Progeny Systems to develop a biometrics-based submarine access control system, $8 million to the Outdoor Venture Corp., also in Somerset, for tents that can be relocated and reconstructed by two people in 20 minutes, and $16 million to the McKee, Ky.-based Phoenix Products Inc. for aircraft drip pans.

    Progeny employees gave more than $13,000 to Rogers through his campaign and his political action committee, HALPAC. Outdoor Venture Corp. president James Egnew and his wife, Azalie, contributed more than $20,000 to Rogers' campaigns; Peggy and Thomas Wilson, owner and manager of Phoenix Products, have given roughly $15,000.


So in addition with mere waste, there also exists these "coincidental" connections between donors donating money and receiving funds. Sure.

It is nearly impossible to find Roger's list of earmarks on his website without this direct link to the list.

http://blog.transparentnevada.com/2009/04/rep-hal-rogers-king-of-earmarks.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the bottom of the page one of the comments left on the blog was this..

"Buying a politician is a no-risk investment that reaps huge jackpot rewards.
I am always amazed at how little it costs to buy multi-million dollar political favors.
Donate $20,000 to Hal Rogers and reap $8 million.
Donate $13,000 to Hal Rogers and reap $6 million.
Donate $15,000 to Hal Rogers and reap $16 million."

[Jack Oneil]

Have you ever wondered about the connection Hal Rogers keep making between Homeland security and milk trucks? I sure have. Maybe it is because I seldom drink milk, or maybe it is because I have a hard time imagining Islamic terrorists sneaking up through some farmers field in Pulaski County to do sabotage the milk supply. Any way here is an article on the subject from kentucky.com.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky milks Homeland Security money
Institute in Somerset hands out millions in research grants




Fred Payne, a University of Kentucky food engineer, had impeccable timing six years ago when he got an idea for defending American milk from terrorism.

Within months of Payne's brainstorm, a Stanford University professor wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times theorizing that terrorists could kill hundreds of thousands of people by dropping a few grams of botulism toxin into the tank of a milk truck leaving a farm.

The essay sent shock waves through the booming homeland security bureaucracy in Washington, which was looking for ways to spend its billions of dollars.
 
Also around this time, U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky, was establishing the non-profit National Institute for Hometown Security, or NIHS, in his hometown of Somerset. As a senior member of Congress, Rogers helps control homeland security spending; he has earmarked $52 million in federal funds for the NIHS, in part to pay for anti-terrorism research at Kentucky universities.

Fear, meet funding. Payne won $2.67 million in NIHS research grants.

Years later, Payne's work on a high-tech "milk-transport security system" is nearing completion and impresses the dairy industry with its potential. Payne has started a company, TranSecurity Systems Inc., to market it. Limited commercial testing in 2009 won high marks, Payne said.

A Washington Post series this week examined the vast public-private enterprise that has grown up around homeland security in Washington and communities around the country. Rogers' institute and the Kentucky projects it funds are one local example of that sprawling operation.

Payne is one of the success stories at the NIHS. Other NIHS-funded projects have included research on face recognition, disaster prediction, pedestrian surveillance and trying to reduce the explosiveness of ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

Not everyone approves of Rogers, a 15-term congressman, establishing his own homeland security agency in a small town with no obvious terrorist targets. Fiscal conservatives say Rogers is building an empire for himself in southeastern Kentucky using his so-called budget earmarks, which direct federal spending.

"If this institute is so important, if it's so needed for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, then why do you have to earmark funding for it?" asked U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., on the House floor in 2008. "Why doesn't the department seek its own funding and say this is a vital institute?"

But Rogers argues that small towns in Kentucky are as potentially vulnerable to terrorist attacks as major coastal cities, so they, too, have a role to play in defending themselves.

"New York and Washington, D.C., think they've been inadequately funded, but so does Albany, Ky.," Rogers said at the NIHS founding in 2004.


The milk man

Payne, a genial inventor with several patents to his name, had spent years thinking about milk.

In the 1980s, he discovered that milk curds reflect light at different levels while coagulating because of the changes in protein. Based on that discovery, he created a sensor and computer program to help dairy farmers know when their cheese is ready.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Payne was among many food experts who began to ponder the safety of the nation's food supply.

Payne said it occurred to him that storage tanks on milk trucks seldom are protected by anything more than an easy-to-cut lock. Where milk came from, where it's going, all of that information is kept on paper — documents that could be used to plan to taint it.

How could 21st-century technology secure milk during transport and provide traceability back to the farm, he wondered.

Eventually, he and his partners, including dairy expert Chris Thompson of the UK College of Agriculture, designed a hand-held wireless computer to record a truck's contents and send that information to remote locations; a global positioning system to identify a truck's whereabouts at all times; and secure locks on the dome lid and rear doors, with a key pad to enter access codes.

remains a keen interest in this project," Payne said, adding that the same technology could secure other liquid foodstuffs, such as corn sweeteners and vegetable oil.

Poisoning fears

Payne won his homeland security grants thanks in part to another professor, Lawrence Wein at Stanford, whom he didn't even know and who wrote The New York Times opinion article.

"A terrorist," Wein wrote in the Times in 2005, "fills a one-gallon jug with a sludge substance containing a few grams of botulin. He then sneaks onto a dairy farm and pours it into the contents of an unlocked milk tank, or he dumps it into the tank of a milk truck while the driver is eating breakfast at a truck stop."

In an interview with the Herald-Leader, Wein, who teaches management science, said he simply was offering a hypothetical situation regarding terrorism. He was not suggesting that milk poisoning was an imminent threat. In fact, he said, the dairy industry has intensified the heat used in pasteurization, which reduces the chances of spores surviving a contamination attempt.

But Wein's remarks led to a tense discussion in Washington about the stuff poured over children's breakfast cereals, Payne said. The homeland security bureaucracy was keenly interested in possible solutions.

"We didn't plan this in response to Wein, but he sure helped us get the grants," Payne said.

Congressman's creation

The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, in Washington pays for the NIHS because Rogers' earmarks tell it to do so. He is the ranking Republican on the relevant House spending committee. The NIHS is based in Somerset, where Rogers lives, and overseen by some of his political allies.

For example, NIHS board chairman J.C. Egnew is one of Rogers' major campaign donors and owner of a tent-making company to which Rogers has steered tens of millions of dollars in federal funds. The NIHS commercialization director, Shannon Rickett, who makes about $80,000 a year, is chairwoman of the Republican Party for Rogers' 5th Congressional District.

The connections are coincidental, said Ewell Balltrip, the non-profit's chief executive, who makes about $121,000 a year.

"Politics doesn't have anything to do with what we do," Balltrip said this week.

The NIHS plugs a hole in national security, Balltrip said, by identifying what kind of new products are necessary to defend the nation's infrastructure. But it needs partners to develop these products, he said.

"We take the identified gaps to Kentucky universities and say, 'These are the areas that need to be addressed,'" Balltrip said. Kentucky researchers submit their suggestions for possible products that could have commercial uses and request research grants to develop them.

The NIHS has shepherded five projects through at least part of the commercialization process. Other than Payne's milk project, its greatest success might be the MITOC, which is short for the Man-Portable Interoperable Tactical Operations Center. The MITOC can be carried around in a small vehicle to provide wireless communications access in disasters that disrupt most other services.

Researchers at the University of Louisville and Murray State University invented MITOC using $1.1 million in NIHS grants. It's now sold by a Texas company to public-safety agencies, Balltrip said.

Given that Rogers is 72 and approaching his fourth decade in Congress, nobody thinks it's a great idea for the NIHS to depend on him for its survival, Balltrip said.

"The ultimate goal," he said, "would be ... for this to become a continuing program and for the president to include it in his annual budget."

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/07/23/1360007_p2/kentucky-milks-homeland-security.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The article seems to be saying that turning up the heat in the pasteurization process would kill the botulism. If so then why are we still spending millions to work on hi-tech cures for the problem?

Even if we can buy the argument terrorist want to poison breakfast, why are we concentrating so hard on the milk supply and apparently ignoring the security of Wheaties, Cheerios, and oatmeal? 

[Melisa Marie]

The sad thing is, while you post a lot of REALLY good articles that are extremely informative, most people will not take the time to read them.
I think most people on THIS FORUM WOULD though, but in general, most of the public will not. They will not take the time to do the research and sit there and read through everything.

Also, so many people are so afraid of change that they don't care how bad the politician is. As long as it is someone they "know" and they feel they can trust, they really don't care where the money is going, how the politician is getting their money etc.

I just hope that Rogers gets enough bad press over his newest scheme that the people of Kentucky get fed up and decide to vote his arse out of office!

I really think there should be term limits. By not having term limits it just CONTRIBUTES to the amount of corruption that can and does happen.
But of course, the government would NEVER vote to create term limits because that would hurt their pockets, their reputation and most of all their own agendas.

 

[Jack Oneil]

It may be true that some people will not take the time to read them, but perhaps these articles will give the folks who do read them some talking points to discuss with their friends, or some added incentive to reconsider their choice of candidate this November.

I know there is only so much a small town forum can do, but I honestly think our efforts can help.

[Melisa Marie]

It may be true that some people will not take the time to read them, but perhaps these articles will give the folks who do read them some talking points to discuss with their friends, or some added incentive to reconsider their choice of candidate this November.

I know there is only so much a small town forum can do, but I honestly think our efforts can help.

Yes, I agree. I think all of this information you (and others) have provided here is helpful. and, spreading the word on facebook etc. to the forum is helpful as well.

I would like to think that most people, especially seeing how down in the dumps ky is right now, would reconsider voting rogers back in, for the reasons you've pointed out, but more.

It's sorta like it's all obvious, but some people just don't get the hint, which is why he's been in for 15 terms!

I think here on the forum, most people are wise enough to realize what's going on, and even while some people on topix (I don't go there, just read it on another thread here) aren't agreeing with him, I think the MOST substantial information wave would be our local news paper. But, that will never happen! 

[bobbalogalogalogaloga]

Anthony Rogers has jumped into the debate about the cheetahs on the CJ Facebook page.

[bizilady]

twitter......

[bizilady]

moonage is very happy with the Herald Leader....NOT!

[Jack Oneil]

Several papers have printed the articles I posted early in this thread, he probably dislikes those newspapers as well. 

[Jack Oneil]

Voters give pork pushers the chop


  By Walter Alarkon  -  05/12/10 08:04 PM ET

The landscape for earmarkers in Congress has changed dramatically this election cycle.

Appropriators from both parties have become the hunted, losing primary races to challengers more hawkish about reforming the provisions lawmakers insert in spending bills to steer money to specific projects in their districts or states.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) was derisively dubbed “Earmark Queen” by GOP gubernatorial primary winner Gov. Rick Perry’s supporters. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) was ousted last weekend by two earmark hawks. And Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, lost to a conservative Democrat who questioned the propriety and impact of Mollohan’s earmarks.

“There are still a few Republicans who don’t get it, but voters have caught on that earmarks lead to wasteful spending and debt,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a staunch earmark opponent. “People used to think that ‘bringing home the bacon’ would ensure reelection, but not anymore. Americans have seen how earmarks are used to bribe members into voting for bailouts, takeovers and huge spending bills.”

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) could be the next appropriator to go. His opponent in next week’s primary, Rep. Joe Sestak (D), has called for replacing the earmark process, dominated by senior appropriators, with a competitive grant process overseen by a new commission. The debate over earmark reform will only intensify in the general election, with the GOP candidate likely to be former Club for Growth President Pat Toomey.

“Big spenders are dropping like flies,” a senior Republican aide said.

It is clear that the anti-earmark movement has many hurdles to clear, but it has made progress over the last couple of years.

During the last election cycle, senators rejected an earmark moratorium proposed by DeMint. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) backed it, but it was soundly rejected, 29-71.

Lawmakers who have railed against earmarks for years, such as Sens. DeMint, Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), McCain and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), have found new support for their push as deficits have risen and the public has become more wary of spending.

Coburn has introduced a bill that would require Congress to set up an earmark database that the public could use to find how many earmarks each lawmaker requested and received. The bill’s co-sponsors are seven Republicans and six Democrats, including several up for reelection this year: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.).

Both House Republican and Democratic leaders have sought to protect their members in an election year by instituting new, unprecedented earmark restrictions. In March, House Republicans said they will go without all earmarks for one year, while House Democrats said they’re permanently banning earmarks for for-profit companies.

Senate Democrats and Republicans have not followed suit.

Top appropriators have pushed back against earmark criticism by pointing to their efforts in recent years to make the practice more transparent so that the public knows where the money is going.

Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) and Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees, respectively, last year required lawmakers for the first time to post their earmark requests online. Democratic leaders have also pointed to a drop in the number and amount of earmarks since their party won control of Congress in 2006.

Official earmarks will account for about $11.1 billion of spending this year, making up a small portion of the federal government’s $1.4 trillion discretionary spending budget.

Inouye, who has been critical of the House Democratic earmark ban on for-profit companies, acknowledged the electorate’s unease with incumbent lawmakers this year, but doubts that their earmarking is to blame.

“I don’t know if it was because they were appropriators, but I don’t fault the people,” Inouye told The Hill. “That’s the democratic way.”

Inouye and other appropriators have pushed back against earmark critics, arguing that lawmakers shouldn’t abdicate every spending decision to the executive branch.

“As far as I’m concerned, I’m not a rubber stamp,” Inouye said. “The Constitution says very clearly that Congress has an important role in establishing the budget.”

The shakeup over earmarks isn’t likely to dissipate after the election.

Should Republicans win the House, the Speaker would likely be House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio), who does not request earmarks.

Boehner will play a major role in determining who will be the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee in 2011. The leading contenders are Reps. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and Bill Young (R-Fla.).

Lewis, a proponent of earmarks, called the House GOP ban “symbolic” during an interview on C-SPAN last month.

Lewis said the GOP moratorium “is symbolic about our commitment to reducing spending over time.”

Meanwhile, Democratic leadership on the House Appropriations Committee will look vastly different next year, with the retirement of Obey, the ouster of Mollohan and the death of former House Appropriations Defense subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.).

The recent moves against earmarks are giving earmark hawks some hope, said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

“You’ve got to take the incremental steps,” she added, “because you’re not going to get everybody to give these up overnight.”


http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/97657-voters-give-pork-proponents-the-chop