Exclusive: Ensign Privately Lobbied Obama Admin For Nearly $1 Million In Health Reform Money

[cal04]

Source: Think Progress

As the new class of GOP lawmakers prepare to assume office, congressional Republicans are increasingly divided over earmarks. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and others are fighting to preserve the practice. On the other hand, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is leading a group of Republicans deeply opposed to earmarks of any kind. Over the weekend DeMint released an updated list of senators standing behind him and his cause. Sen.-elect Mike Lee (R-UT), one of DeMint’s most stalwart lieutenants in his earmark battle, clarified that the GOP’s opposition to earmarks would include any specific grant money authorized by larger legislative items. Referring to the earmarking process, Lee told libertarian radio host Eric Dondero that he is fed up with lawmakers playing “Santa Claus” by doling out money from grant programs in laws like President Obama’s health care reform and economic stimulus package.

However, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), one of DeMint’s anti-earmark supporters, appears to have been playing “Santa Claus” by demanding money from the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s health care reform law enacted early this year. Over the summer, Ensign sent a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius requesting grant money authorized by the law for the University of Nevada School of Medicine for “Primary Care Residency Expansion.” This grant program is one of many included in the health law to increase the number of doctors in America. In the letter, Ensign explained that “Nevada continues to have an extremely low number of physicians per capita,” and that the grant would help alleviate the “growing challenges Nevada continues to face with providing access to much-needed health care.”

ThinkProgress obtained a copy of the letter using a Freedom of Information Act request. Below is a screen shot of Ensign’s health reform request letter, and a copy may be downloaded here:

http://images2.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/johnensign.pdf

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/15/ensign-health-reform/

---

[SpiralHawk]

1. Sooooo typical of Republicons: hypocrisy up the wazooo

Ptoooey on the phony Republicon so-called 'conservatives.'

[madrchsod]

6. i live in republican hypocrisy hell...

hometown of ronald reagan.

[zbdent]

2. Don't forget Rand "absolute minimalist government" Paul's statement

where he point out that, despite his campaigning on eliminating earmarks, if he can't do so, he'll fight for all the earmarks he can get for his state/district ...

[UTUSN]

3. K&R #7, rec it UP!1 n/t

[DCKit]

4. Both sides of the earmark debate have great points.

However, I would suggest that instead of slipping earmarks into other spending bills, the states be required to apply, in an open and transparent fashion, for these monies.

End the earmarks, then let the states fight for the money on a level playing field.

[skepticscott]

5. Better yet, amend the Constitution

to require that all bills have a single purpose, as many state constitutions already do.

[Iowa]

12. Yes. +1

[DoctorK]

13. why not keep the money at the state level in the first place?

What's the advantage of sending the money to Washington except letting the lobbyist focus on buying offices on K Street?

[jwirr]

21. Years ago when every thing was handled at the state level many

states did not cover those people they did not want to: such as black people and the poor. This became very clear when George McGovern did his study on hunger. My severely disabled daughter who was the victim of chemical runoff from farms was refused health care in the county we lived and we had to go to the neighboring county to get help. That is why we now have federal programs.

[pdefalla]

7. Tempest in a Teapot?

Let's not forget that earmarks comprise no more than about 1% of the budget. It's really a non-issue. The dollars involved have already been budgeted, so eliminating earmarks does not impact the deficit. But its the only place where the Repubs dare to talk about spending. They know that ssi and medicare are third rail issues. All this crap about reducing "runaway federal spending" comes to a screeching halt when you mention specific programs that their constituents love.

[rasputin1952]

8. Precisely...

When Cantor was asked numerous times he hedged & hawed his way out of any form of commitment...it's all bluster. If Teabaggers think they are going to change this, they are in for an extremely rude awakening.

Editied for typo...:blush:

[valerief]

9. Teabaggers can't even spell. (Typos don't count.). nt

[rasputin1952]

10. Oops, had to fix that...

:blush:

:D

[valerief]

19. I wasn't aiming that at you. Typos really DON'T count. But all their stupid

signs aren't just typos. They can't spell at all!!!

[rasputin1952]

22. I know...

but I like to fix up my typo's when I can...Lord knows I have enough of them...;)

[perdita9]

11. A Hypocritical Republican

Really, is there any other kind?

[xchrom]

14. Next to scumbag is a picture of ensign. Nt

[county worker]

15. It looks like the grant money was in the bill. When grants are made available

there are many applicants. Part of the application process is to have a congress person be a reference which this seems to me to be.

It doesn't look to me like this is an earmark since the money was already in the law. It is a grant that was available and Ensign was a reference in hopes to give the applicant more weight in the selection process. That is what it looks like to me. I work with grant applications alls the time. I was working on a Homeless grant this morning.

[BetsysGhost]

16. I for one hope they finally get rid of earmarks

then there won't be any excuse/reason to re-elect that old congresswoman again.

[paparush]

17. What? He hasn't resigned in shame and hung himself from his front porch light?

Shocking!
:sarcasm:

[Independem]

18. Democrats announce a moratorium on earmarks 3/11/2010

Two Cheers for Dueling Earmark Reform Proposals in House March 11 2010

After enacting 93,000 earmarks at a cost of $200 billion over the past decade, lawmakers are finally taking the first steps to rein them in. First, House Democrats hinted they may announce a moratorium on earmarks to for-profit companies (while retaining them for non-profit organizations and state and local governments).

Reducing earmarks will not directly reduce the amount of money available for grantees. Instead, it will empower federal agencies to select grantees through a merit-based application process. For other programs, it means more funding will instead be distributed to state and local governments, who can better decide where to repair a road or how to revitalize a neighborhood than politicians in Washington D.C.

In addition, President Obama should sign an Executive Order banning all “phone-marks.” Phone-marking occurs when a lawmakers tries to circumvent an earmark ban by directly calling federal agencies and demanding that certain favored groups receive federal grants. Because they leave no paper trail, phone-marks are even less accountable than earmarks.

http://blog.heritage.org/?p=28644

Cutting taxes will bring in Billions of Surplus 2001

CBO's new budget projections, released on August 28, show that the projected 2001 surplus outside Social Security has turned into a deficit of $9 billion. Some $95 billion of the $134 billion deterioration in the size of the projected surplus is due to legislation enacted last fall or this spring.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=606

The last decade, controlled by Republicans had 93,000 earmarks, now they are going to change? What they are signing is meaningless, nobody will see who signed the earmark deal. Remember Bush saying Cutting taxes will bring in Billions of Surplus?

[ProudDad]

20. You mean he didn't send his girlfriend? (n/t)