Making Sausage

Part 2 (see Part 1 here)

While on active duty I was tasked to piddle away spend one million of your tax dollars on a study for the Defense Logistics Agency they neither needed nor wanted. But the agency didn’t oppose it. The outrage was the study had to go to a “not-for-profit trucking research institute engaged exclusively in motor-carrier R&D”. One couldn’t find a more blatant example of congressional pork if it came slathered in BBQ sauce (O.K there is that rain forest in Iowa and the bridge to nowhere).

It didn’t take long to figure out who the intended recipient was for this bit of congressional corruption (see which beltway lobbyist tops the list when you “Google” the words “not-for-profit trucking research institute”). Conversely it also didn’t take long for the American Trucking Association to find me. My friends at headquarters were tired of getting their pestering phone calls so they gave them my number.

“When are you going to get us the contract?” asked the ATA rep.

By this time I was so thoroughly peeved with DLA and corrupt congressmen that I wasn’t in the mood to be accommodating to a lobbying outfit who probably penned the earmark. I cooked up a scheme of my own.

“I’m going to compete the effort” I replied.

There was a moment of silence then “Who else is there?”

“I don’t know yet” was my reply. But I was ticked and I was determined to find some competition.

I started doing my own research to develop options. I actually looked up the law signed by the President; that’s when I learned the complete earmark wasn’t there. The law just listed the title of the project and a dollar sum but the restrictive language was missing. That language could be found in a House Conference report – sort of like a signing statement. Technically the actual law didn’t specify restrictions on how to spend the money. That was nice to know. Bismark said once “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Except in this case I found some missing ingredients.

I learned from the House Conference report that your one million in tax dollars was really earmarked for two studies. The breakdown was in the appropriation - $750K was allocated for my “feasibility study to nowhere”. The remaining $250K was to be used to study private sector ammunition transportation security. A few more phone calls and I found the stuckee for this second study in the US Transportation Command. He was an Army Lt Col and he was red-hot mad – apparently they didn’t need that study either and he saw the earmark for what it was – a rip-off. Like me, the Lt Col had also discovered the law didn’t include the strait-jacked earmark language. He went to his Judge Advocate to see about spending the money on something useful. The decision went up to his three star vice-commander who directed they stick to Congress’s intent. They weren’t going to make waves either.

The Army Lt Col’s experience was a caution to me. If I was going to deviate from the earmark’s language it would be best if I didn’t ask for permission.

My next post describes how I figured a way to do it.