ShareThisIt isn't unusual for incoming presidents to surround themselves with persons from their home states. Lyndon Johnson studded his administration with Texans as did the Bushes and Jimmy Carter leaned on Georgians in selecting his White House staff.
President-elect Obama, the former senator from Illinois, has followed the same pattern -- maybe once too often. His pick for the post that will directly oversee the proposed allocations of billions of dollars to create millions of jobs has been one of the 10 top pork dispensers in the House, a champion of the much-maligned art of earmarking, some of it to the benefit of those whose contributions have helped keep him in office.
Former Republican Rep. Ray LaHood, who retired last month after seven terms in Congress and a long stint on the House Appropriations Committee, seems mainly to have been one of an increasing number of members of Congress whose political careers have been largely built on the philosophy that what is first and foremost good for their districts is good for the nation. Bringing taxpayer money to Peoria, in fact, would appear to be his only reason for occupying the office.
And he has been good at it, siphoning millions of dollars from the federal treasury for local projects and for the benefit of financial supporters, according to recent news reports. Last year alone, the prospective secretary of Transportation was responsible for $70 million in earmarks aimed at his district and although some amounts have gone to help those who donated to his campaign, he claims there is no link between that and his efforts in their behalf. One of these has been Caterpillar, Peoria's largest corporation, which reportedly kicked in $190,000 to LaHood's reelection efforts over the last 10 years.
What makes this nomination all the more bizarre is Obama's unequivocal opposition to earmarks and the pork barrel spending that has helped drive the nation's budgets to unmanageable levels in the best "bridge to nowhere" tradition. He now plans to put one of the 10 most prolific abusers of this practice in charge of dispensing the road and bridge portion of his proposed $775 billion economic recovery package. What in the world is he thinking? It seems fair to ask how many new roads will be built in LaHood's hometown.
At the same time, LaHood has ties to a controversial but influential Illinois political figure, William F. Cellini Sr., indicted by U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in the "pay for play" scandal that has rocked the state's political scene since the arrest of Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Road refurbishing in LaHood's district has been one of the main thrusts of the congressman's earmark efforts. He has received campaign financial support from local road contractors. Cellini is the head of the Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association.
All this may just be coincidental and innocent as LaHood maintains. But the appearance of a quid pro quo, real or not, is there nevertheless. It is difficult to understand at this very important phase of his upcoming presidency why Obama's allegedly thorough transition office would turn to anyone who might be open to such questions, especially a Republican. News reports have raised enough red flags about LaHood's connections and long history on the Appropriations committee that investigators should have paused before naming him to a Cabinet post that will be one of the most important cogs in the economic recovery efforts.
The president-elect recently accepted without much comment New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's resignation as prospective Commerce secretary because of a "pay for play" inquiry by U.S. authorities in his home state. The increased federal attention being paid to contracts and awards possibly linked to contributions to office holders has partially resulted from the earmark practice. If Obama, as he has said, deplores this practice and is determined to see it end, he should have looked elsewhere rather than choose a man who has stayed in office by making an earmark the hallmark of his career, even if the president-elect had to search outside the state of Illinois.
A wise man once said that sometimes one's friends could do one in as quickly as one's enemies no matter how comfortable it is to have home folks around.
(E-mail Dan K. Thomasson, former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service, at thomassondan(at)aol.com.)
COLUMN
Ray LaHood
Any one who knows Ray LaHood knows that he is above reproach. He is not only honorable but a dedicated public servant. He is not a porker. If you visit Peoria, you will quickly find out that the roads there were in such disrepair that it would have taken many millions of dollars to repair them. The city nor state had that kind of money to put them in acceptable conditions. This was not pork for Peoria. It was a necessity. Caterpillar is one of the few idustries in the USA that is actually exporting to the nations of the world. It is hard to find any other industry in the USA doing the same. Every dollar spent helping Caterpillar brings many jobs to the US and helps balance the foreign trade deficit.
I would suggest that President Obama in naming Mr.LaHood Transportation secretary made not only a politically wise decision; but named a person who will serve the USA with honesty ,vigor and distinction.
LaHood not the right man for the job
Ray LaHood opposed Amtrak service to Peoria, but supported overbuilding I-74 through town. His comment on those who want to take the train? Drive or take a bus to Bloomington to catch the train. Not exactly forward-thinking. So I agree that Ray is not the right person for the job. We need someone with a 21st-century vision for national transportation, not a mid-20th-century vision for highway building.
That said, I agree with Mr. Rafool that Ray is a "dedicated public servant." An old proverb says, "never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by ignorance." I think that's the situation with LaHood. He's not in some sort of conspiracy, selling out what he thinks is best for transportation policy in order to help his campaign contributors. I think he sincerely believes that more highways equals good transportation policy. He is either unaware or unconvinced of the unsustainability of a 1950's transportation policy in 2009. And that's, frankly, even scarier than the pay-to-play scenario you laid out in your article.