John Culberson Does A 180 On Earmarks

Less than a month ago, Congressman John Culberson (R-Houston), who was under the microscope over a weird earmark for the Houston Zoo, said that he believed earmarks should only be used for four distinct purposes:

Culberson, who co-sponsored the $294,000 earmark for the Houston Zoo with Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, said he believed federal spending should be limited to basic functions such as national security, border protection, transportation and medical research.

Now, Culberson has done a complete 180 from that statement and has proffered an earmark for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with national security, border protection, transportation, or medical research:

John Adams never set foot in what is now the Lone Star State. But a local congressman, utilizing a controversial practice commonly reserved for local projects, wants to honor the Massachusetts revolutionary who became the nation’s second president.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, has submitted a half-million dollar earmark request to the House Appropriations Committee that would help finance a Washington monument for Adams, the subject of an HBO miniseries, and his son John Quincy, the country’s sixth president.

Clearly, this has nothing to do with anything Culberson says he believes earmarks should be used for. In fact, to make sure, Capitol Annex has carefully analyzed the earmark:

• Transportation. Unless the monument is a monorail or launching pad for a helicopter, it doesn’t have a thing to do with transportation.
• Border Protection. Unless the monument is to be built along the Mexican Border and designed to be several hundred miles long, it clearly will have no impact on border protection.
• Medical Research. Unless the monument will have an electronic opening that will take your blood, dispense placebos for drug studies, or test for cataracts, it clearly has no medical research implications.
• National Security. Unless plans for the monument include a bunker for Vice President Dick Cheney to hide in should Canada invade from the north, there doesn’t seem to be much of a national security implication.

How does Culberson justify his flip-flop? Try this on for size:

Culberson, who boasts about his record as a fiscal conservative, justified the requests by saying that “historic preservation is an essential function of the federal government.”

Sure, we’ll buy that. But, “historic preservation,” and “building a monument” are two entirely different functions. Historic preservation would be an earmark for preserving John Quincy Adams’ house or something like that. This is, literally, just building something.

Not to diss the esteemed Adams family, but come on. Was there no wastewater treatment facility, free clinic, or homeless shelter anywhere in CD 7 that could have used half a million dollars? Seriously, if you are going to do an earmark like that, couldn’t it least have something to do with your district? Sadly, unless there is a stone quarry somewhere in CD 7 where several dozen jobs will be created by the construction of such a monument (for which half a million is probably a sad drop in the bucket anyway), there is literally no positive benefit for the people of his district or Texas.

Bookmark It