The Post says the revelation was uncovered by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster bestseller, Throw Them All Out:

Over the past decade, the House minority leader helped secure $50 million in earmarks toward a light-rail project that provides direct access to San Francisco’s Union Square and Chinatown for neighborhoods south of Market Street. Pelosi’s husband owns a four-story commercial building blocks from Union Square. These earmarks were reported in the book “Throw Them All Out.” A Pelosi spokesman said the project was requested by community leaders and that the new stations on the line will be farther away from the building than those on the existing line.

In response, Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s spokesperson, Drew Hammill, had this to say:

The entire city of San Francisco is 47 square miles and is one of the most densely populated cities in the country. The property in question is located right off of the Market Street rail line
and the closest new station will be considerably further away.

As many community groups have noted this rail line connects heavily populated areas in San Francisco, which have been underserved in the past and this project will help
alleviate serious congestion problems. The idea for this project originated in the community, specifically Chinatown and South of Market, and these community leaders came to their elected
officials in Washington for help.

According to the Washington Post, Hammill also claimed that two existing stations are presently located closer to Pelosi’s property than where the new stations will be located.

After analyzing the holdings of all 535 members of Congress and comparing them to their earmarks for pet projects since 2008, the Washington Post found numerous eye-opening instances of potential self-enrichment at taxpayers’ expense, including:

• Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): obtained a $900,000 earmark to resurface roads where he and his daughter own two homes.  “I didn’t say, ‘Do the street that I live on,” Rep. Thompson protested when the Washington Post confronted him.  “The earmark went to the county.  It had no designation on it whatsoever, and that was it.”
• Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD): secured approximately $4.5 million for an interstate interchange that leads to Rep. Bartlett’s home, his 104-acre farm, and rental properties that earn him $150,000 annually.  “He was being an advocate for what was presented to him as the highest priority,” the congressman’s press secretary Lisa Wright said.  “Coincidentally, this was around two miles from his farm.”
• Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX): bagged $665,000 in taxpayer funds to expand a road 600 feet away from his family’s food processing plant, H&H Foods.  “It helps everybody,” Rep. Hinojosa told the Washington Post.  “The only way it made sense to handle this tremendous population growth and avoid problems for the school buses that go through that intersection was to widen it.”
• Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA): scored $750,000 for a new bridge three blocks away from a 7,000-square-foot building he and his wife own as well as Columbia Basin Paper & Supply, a janitorial supply company he previously owned that is now run by his brother.  “It never crossed my mind,” Rep. Hastings told the Washington Post.  “Every business in Pasco will benefit by that.”
• Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MA): landed a $187,000 earmark to replenish a shoreline 90 miles away from his home district near a beach that, coincidentally, he and his wife own two condominiums by that generate $15,000 in rental income.  Rep. Ruppersberger said questioning the proximity of his properties to the project was “ridiculous.”  “That’s a stretch to say that thing’s going to benefit me.”
• Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): secured $6.3 million to replenish a beach 900 feet away from a $142,900 cottage he owns.  “It’s absurd to suggest that this benefits me,” Kingston protested to the reporters.  “The beach doesn’t improve the real estate of a house, unless it’s on the beach.  The only thing that changes in value is the beachfront property.”
• Rep. John W. Olver (D-MA): obtained $5.1 million in earmarks to restructure a road 209 feet from Rep. Olver’s 15-acre home and several adjoining properties he and his wife own.  “I had no monetary interest whatsoever in this project,” Rep. Olver said.  “I had nothing to with the design.  I was never notified of any of the hearings.  I had no involvement whatsoever.”
• Rep. Candice S. Miller (R-MI): obtained a $486,000 earmark that helped add a 14-foot bike lane within walking distance of her house.  “People earmark for all kinds of things,” Rep. Miller said when asked about the project.  “I’m pretty proud of this; I think I did what my people wanted.  Should I have told them, ‘We can never have this bike path complete because I happen to live by one section of it’?  They would have thrown me out of office.”
• Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY): secured $7 million in earmarks, a portion of which went to overhaul streets around the corner from a bank where he is director emeritus and owns a $1-$5 million stake in the bank’s holding company and also narrowed the street he lives on to slow traffic.  “Congressman Rogers sees no conflict of interest in helping local community leaders achieve their goals for growth,” the congressman’s chief of staff Michael R. Higdon told the Washington Post.

The Washington Post report also concluded that 16 members of Congress directed taxpayer dollars to “companies, colleges, or community programs where their spouses, children or parents work as salaried employees or serve on boards.”

The practice of earmarks continues to be a source of angst for conservatives and citizens concerned with out-of-control federal spending.  In 2010, a record high 11,230 earmarks accounted for $32 billion in federal spending.

Lying within that massive federal loan was a number of sub-awards to other vendors, 40 payments of which were greater than $25,000 each. The largest sub-award went to another administration favorite, CH2M Hill, to the tune of $9.6 million for their construction engineering services. The company is a $6.3 billion consulting, engineering, and construction firm, and shares some similarities to the failed Solyndra. In fact, CH2M used the nearly $10 million sub-award to design Solyndra’s solar manufacturing plant in Fremont, California. Besides that amount, CH2M is also a major beneficiary of the stimulus, having been awarded four of the top ten contracts from stimulus funding last summer – to the tune of $1.2 billion. As of this April, the company boasts of $1.6 billion in contracts from the Recovery Act.

Perhaps even more apparent is another similarity to the Solyndra company – CH2M Hill’s decline in employment. Reports of layoffs at CH2M began in January when KEPR-TV announced that 1,350 layoffs were coming in September due to the end of stimulus funding. The company recently organized a job fair for those affected by these layoffs, and an additional 1,000 layoffs at the contractor’s Hanford reservation. The job fair comes exactly one year after it was revealed that the company was inflating jobs reports by using a metric known as ‘lives touched’.

How did companies such as Solyndra and CH2M Hill become such lucky recipients of taxpayer money through the stimulus?

House Energy Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) is planning an investigation of White House dealings with the Solyndra loan, citing the administration’s monitoring of the application and loan process, along with the knowledge of a key investor for the company, George Kaiser. Kaiser is an Oklahoma billionaire, and was a major fundraiser for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. The Kaiser connection even caught the eye of the Los Angeles Times when they asked the question point blank – “Is Obama using stimulus funds to reward his political contributors?”

Steering funds to benefit political allies may be another area in which CH2M resembles Solyndra. They don’t necessarily have a smoking gun contributor like Kaiser, but with nearly $2 billion in total contracts generated from stimulus funding, there should be some interest in the company’s finances.

During the 2009-2010 election cycle, CH2M contributed 60% of nearly $650,000 in campaign finances to Democrats. The top five total contributions were delivered to Democrats, including notable Obama allies such as Barbara Boxer ($21,250) and Harry Reid ($12,500). Year 2007-2008 also saw contributions in favor of the Democrats, with Senator Barack Obama himself receiving the most money at over $45,000.

But the company isn’t just a force for political contributions. Their monetary efforts show more muscle in the lobbying field than any other, something Obama once denigrated as a presidential nominee. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that CH2M was lobbying their special interests via $835,000 worth of itemized expenditures in 2010. One of the more prominent lobbyists CH2M has employed is Matthew Chiller, Senior Federal Affairs Director. Chiller, according to the National Journal, worked as Legislative Director on the staff of four different Democrats, while also serving on the recount committee in 2000 for former Vice-President, Al Gore. His skills can be seen in a CH2M PowerPoint presentation on how to secure state and federal funding, in which viewers are briefed in the alleged Constitutional right to spend via congressional earmarks, and given pointers on how to “work the earmark politically”.

In addition to all of this, former employees of CH2M have held, or will hold, plum appointments on administrative boards. Former CH2M Hill CTO, Dan Arvizu, is currently serving a six-year term on the National Science Board for the National Science Foundation. In 2009, Lee McIntire, current Chairman and CEO, was appointed by the Obama Administration to the U.S.-Brazil CEO Forum. In March, he joined the President on a trip to Latin America. And just recently in July, President Obama announced his intent to nominate Jack Baylis, former Senior Vice-President at CH2M, to the a administrative post on the National Infrastructure Advisory Council.

While White House officials have denied interjecting in deals for companies that have backed the President and his party – such as Solyndra and CH2M – questions remain as to why those most cozy with the administration have been reaping the benefits of the stimulus bill.

The answers are yet to come…

Rusty can be contacted via Twitter @rustyweiss74

Calling for Congress to “raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires,” Schakowsky quoted a constituent who supports her:

“Our country is not really broke,” said Cynthia Carranza, who directs a food pantry in Niles. Carranza has watched the increase in hungry people at her food pantry door even as government support for her program is slashed. “We’re an incredibly rich and prosperous nation. But our wealth is skewed to a very few fortunate at the top. We’re not broken, just twisted.”

Carranza’s support for government redistribution of wealth is no surprise. She may complain about the rich, but she has benefited richly from federal largesse: Carranza’s food pantry was the recipient of a $250,000 earmark requested by Schakowsky for FY 2011 in the run-up to last year’s congressional election.

Schakowsky laments that “government support” for the Niles Township Food Pantry has been “slashed,” but she certainly knows that is not the whole truth.

Schakowsky slipped the earmark request into a transportation, housing and urban development appropriations bill loaded with earmarks by other representatives. (The same bill was used by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to direct $1 million to the National Council of La Raza for “Capitalization of a Revolving Loan Fund to be Used for Nationwide Community Development Activities.”)

Nowhere in her Tribune article did Schakowsky reveal that she had effectively paid Carranza for her opinion–nor, apparently, did the Tribune vet Schakowsky’s source.

Aside from the inherent faults in Schakowsky’s argument–e.g. the Bush tax cuts did not cause the federal deficit, raising taxes on the rich would not be enough to overcome the budget gap, and a revenue-only approach would require steep middle-class tax hikes–her dishonesty about her source undermines the credibility of her argument.

The corrupt earmark system may not account for a large percentage of government spending, but it has become a potent symbol of Congress’s disregard for its fiduciary duty to the taxpayers. Worthy social causes–like food pantries–ought to receive state, local, and/or private support, or be funded through stand-alone federal legislation.

Earmarks are a major reason Americans want spending cuts and fiscal discipline before any talk of raising taxes. Republicans argue that raising taxes, as Schakowsky and fellow Democrats want to do, would not only slow the economy and hurt jobs, but also create additional opportunities for waste and corruption.

Schakowsky has, however clumsily and inadvertently, proved that point.

An article in the New York Times today discusses both the call by some in Alaska to dismantle two of Governor Palin’s energy related legislative victories and the claim by others that they are responsible for Governor Palin’s great fiscal record and Alaska’s strong fiscal health.

Current Alaska Governor Sean Parnell is seeking to make changes to Governor Palin’s oil tax structure–”Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share” (ACES) legislation. This legislation replaced Governor Murkowski’s corruption-tainted oil tax plan. Governor Palin’s plan primarily taxed oil company’s net profits on production, and its flexibility based upon oil prices and its tax credits  encouraged greater capital development and investment than Murkowski’s tax structure. Moreover, Governor Palin signed ACES into law in order to make the oil tax structure more in line with the state constitution which stated that natural resources (i.e. oil) belong to the people and need to be developed for the maximum benefit of Alaskans.

The reality doesn’t match up to the Governor Parnell’s claims. The number of oil companies filing with the Alaska Department of Revenue has doubled indicating that competition has indeed increased. Alaska has the second most business friendly tax set-up — up two spots since the passage of ACES. Additionally, a report from Governor Parnell’s Department of Revenue indicated that 2009 yielded a record high in oil jobs. Even more recently, the newest employment numbers from Alaska show that oil job numbers were higher in January 2011 than in January 2010, indicating that jobs are growing at the seasonal level. Parnell argues that state revenues are in jeopardy, but it is estimated that his proposal would reduce revenues by $100-200 million. Governor Parnell is right on other issues, but the numbers tell a different story than he asserts when it comes to ACES.

The New York Times also questions the progress of Governor Palin’s natural gas pipeline project–the Alaska’s Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA)–which will bring natural gas from the North Slope of Alaska through Canada to the Lower 48 as an additional means of achieving energy independence. Governor Palin’s pipeline project was done in a transparent free-market friendly manner with proposals available for public consumption-- a far cry from the behind-closed-doors pipeline discussion with oil companies that were commonplace and unsuccessful in previous administrations. The New York Times argues that neither gas suppliers nor federal permits had been obtained for the project.

However, at the end of the first open season for bidding by gas suppliers this past summer, there were “several major players” who had submitted bids. Additionally, the pipeline company TransCanada and oil company ExxonMobil, both partners on AGIA-backed pipeline project, have had discussions with BP-ConocoPhilips to work together on the project. Additionally, the permitting process with both American and Canadian regulatory agencies has made “significant progress,” and the progress is right on track with time projections.

A bipartisan majority in the House, including the entire Wisconsin delegation, drew a line in the sand last month and voted against handing out another $3 billion to GE and Rolls Royce for the clearly unnecessary alternate engine for the F-35 joint strike fighter. This second engine would be produced in addition to the engine being manufactured by Pratt & Whitney, the company that won the competitive bidding to supply the engine for the F-35.

Pratt & Whitney is already manufacturing that engine, and it has performed well in the advanced testing required by the Air Force. Nonetheless, the federal government has paid out $1.3 billion to GE over the past 14 years to develop a long delayed second engine. Estimates are that the engine development would cost taxpayers another $3 billion.

The second engine program is obviously unneeded. President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush both tried to kill the second engine program as unnecessary and expensive. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates doesn’t want the second engine, nor does the Air Force. But until the House vote on Feb. 16, Congress had continuously approved an earmark of unrequested spending for the second engine.

Funding production of a second engine is a classic example of the earmarks that inflate the cost of defense spending and have helped build the massive federal debt.

Apologists for the second engine funding say it would be a source of competition that will keep costs down. In truth, programs like this are an expensive consolation prize for big defense contractors that lose out with competitive proposals but have enough friends in Congress to see that they don’t go away empty-handed.

But members of the new Republican House majority, led by first-term lawmakers committed to cutting the deficit, made common cause with Democrats and bucked the House leadership to kill the wasteful program. This could be a sign of broad based political revolt against irresponsible government spending.

Both parties would do well to heed the signs of the past election. Fiscal conservatives and political independents came together here in Wisconsin to show their impatience and distaste for lavish government spending in these tough economic times.

We’ll get a test of that when the House amendment opposing the second engine boondoggle goes before the Senate. While the Senate is still controlled by Democrats, both parties should be on notice that the people back home have had it with tax dollars being spent recklessly on unnecessary and wasteful programs. And for now at least, the public is watching.

Last summer conservatives rolled their eyes when they read in Politico that Rep. Eric Cantor, then serving as GOP whip, suggested “Republicans may roll back their ban on earmarks.”

The self-imposed moratorium, enacted last March, was a triumph for conservatives in their long-running battle with House appropriators. Now it appeared to be under attack from the future House majority leader.

The disappointment among conservatives — not to mention Tea Party-backed candidates across America — must have resonated with Cantor. Just six week later he penned a piece for Politico declaring war on pork-barrel projects and endorsing a new moratorium in the 112th Congress.

Cantor’s outspoken opposition to earmarks put their advocates on the defensive. It set the stage for last fall’s confrontation among Senate Republicans and this week’s decision by Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) to effectively end earmarks for two years.

Why is this relevant? The GOP is facing another spending showdown — this time over $100 billion worth of cuts promised in the Pledge to America.

Republican leaders have put forward a plan that cuts non-security spending by $58 billion, a noble effort, but still $42 billion short of their campaign promise. (They also cut $16 billion from security funding.)

Conservatives believe $100 billion should equal $100 billion. Nearly 90 of them with the Republican Study Committee recently asked Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to stick to the GOP’s promise. And when the debate reaches the House floor this month, RSC Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) plans to offer an amendment — or multiple amendments — to bring the level of cuts to $100 billion.

Republican leaders, meanwhile, have been noncommittal. Cantor, when asked about it last week following a Heritage Foundation speech, said Republicans would cut $100 billion on an “annualized basis.” (That’s Beltway jargon for cuts that don’t equal $100 billion.)

Here’s the transcript:

Q: I’m wondering if you will support Congressman Jim Jordan’s amendment for a true $100 billion worth of cuts during the CR debate …

A: We are, that’s in reference to the CR debate which will come to the floor Feb. 14. We announced yesterday well in advance. The purpose of my announcing earlier is to make sure that all of our members on our side of the aisle as well as others have the opportunity to proffer their vision as to how we cut the deficit and we have instructed the appropriations, the budget chairman to hold us all accountable for spending levels and we said that we wanted to be at at least 2008 levels as our party committed to during the election in the Pledge to America. We said 2008 levels or less and as you know we are in the situation we are in five months into the fiscal year because the former Democratic House failed to produce a budget and so we have now found ourselves in a Continuing Resolution environment that has held constant 2010 levels. So, we’re looking to the appropriators to come up with their version of how we cut this budget. Again, they have the limit of saying 2008 levels or less, so let’s see what they do and the reason why I am so insistent to say “or less” is because we all have to be very focused on making sure that we find new ways to do more with less. In response to your question, in that context, we are going to accomplish [a] $100 billion cut on an annualized basis.

As they return to Capitol Hill next week, House Republicans must weigh the backlash they will face for violating their $100 billion campaign promise. Anything less than a true $100 billion worth of spending cuts this year will be unacceptable to conservatives.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Cantor showed that great leadership on earmarks and he can do so again on this next big spending debate. That means cutting a true $100 billion and nothing less.

**
UPDATE: To his credit, Majority Leader Eric Cantor plans to support additional spending cuts during the House floor debate, when any member will be allowed to offer amendments. “Leader Cantor looks forward to supporting many of those amendments designed to cut spending and grow jobs,” spokesman Brad Dayspring told the Daily Caller.