Twenty-two members of the U.S. House of Representatives scored 100 percent on the 2009 "RePORK Card," a congressional grading system published by the Club for Growth in Washington, D.C. Higher percentage scores identify the politicians most willing to vote to remove earmarks, or "pork," from the federal budget. There were 21 Republicans and one Democrat receiving perfect grades. Not one member from M

Michigan — from either party — scored 100 percent.

The scorecard consists of 68 earmark-killing amendments introduced by U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-AZ, and two of his budget-cutting allies in Congress. These legislators launched a similar assault on earmarks during the 2008 federal budget battle. Support from Michigan politicians for five of the targeted spending projects were examined in the September/October 2009 Michigan Capitol Confidential.

Noting on July 16, 2009, that the federal government is running a "nearly $2 trillion deficit," Flake asked his fellow lawmakers, "Why in the world are we spending another $100,000" to give an earmark to the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Conference Center? Observing that convention centers exist all over the nation, Flake also asked: "Why we should choose one and say they're worthy of an earmark and the other one isn't, and saying that they shouldn't compete for dollars, we're just going to hand them out?"

Only 99 of 435 members of the U.S. House voted with Flake to kill this earmark for the South Carolina resort town. Like each of the other 67 efforts to remove earmarks from the 2010 budget, this one failed.

According to its Web page, the RePORK Card-sponsoring Club for Growth is a "national network of thousands of Americans" who "believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom." The separate Club for Growth Political Action Committee provides "financial support" from Club members to help "viable, pro-growth" candidates running for Congress. Club-funded challengers frequently run in Republican primaries against other Republican candidates who are deemed by Club membership to be too willing to support bigger government and higher taxes.

"The RePORK Card will help taxpayers measure the dedication of their representatives to changing the culture of corruption that surrounds pork-barrel spending," explained David Keating, the Club's executive director. But he believes the dedication wasn't there for most of them in 2009: "When given an opportunity to save taxpayer dollars and limit spending to true national priorities, most members of Congress took a pass."

The median 2009 score for all Republicans in the U.S. House was 69 percent, and just three of Michigan's seven Republicans scored higher than this. The median score for Democrats nationwide was zero percent, and six of eight Michigan Democrats posted this score.

The highest-scoring member from Michigan was U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, with 97 percent.

With a 43 percent grade, U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, posted the highest score for any Michigan Democrat, and well above the 2009 RePORK Card national average for his party. Two Michigan Republicans posted RePORK Card grades substantially lower than did Schauer.

Some other earmark votes graded in the 2009 RePORK Card included $325,000 for the "Institute for Seafood Studies" in Louisiana, $90,000 for the "Commercial Kitchen Business Incubator project" in California, $150,000 for the "Tarrytown Music Hall" restoration in New York, $250,000 for the "Monroe County Farmer's Market" in Kentucky and $1 million for "potato research in Idaho, Oregon and Washington."

The 2009 RePORK Card grades for members of the Michigan delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives are below. Please note that scores for Michigan's two U.S. senators are not included in the RePORK Card because none of the 68 amendments that comprise this grade were introduced for a vote in the U.S. Senate.

2009 Club for Growth "RePORK Card" Scores

Higher percentages equal more votes to eliminate earmark pork

Source: www.clubforgrowth.org/projects

Ken Braun is the senior managing editor of Michigan Capitol Confidential. He may be reached at author@mackinac.org.

When politicians talk about placing natural resources in public trust, landowners should worry. The right to own and use private property is a bedrock principle of a free people. These rights are threatened by House Bill 5319, which would place groundwater in public trust and require landowners to secure a permit from the state of Michigan in order to use that water. Sponsored by state Rep. Dan Scripps, D-Northport, the bill would essentially overturn more than a century of Michigan water law.

Property rights are often compared to a bundle of sticks. Philosopher John Locke was an early proponent of this idea, which holds that the sticks that make up the bundle are a compilation of the various rights that come with owning private property, including the rights to live on or bequeath it. Water rights are a significant "stick" in that bundle. With the introduction of House Bill 5319, Michigan property owners are threatened by government action that would steal a stick from that bundle and give it to the state.

Like most states east of the Mississippi River, Michigan is a riparian water-use state. In Michigan, if you own the land, you own the water and have a legal right to use that water as long as you do not interfere with the reasonable use of water by your neighbors. This has been true since the state was first settled.

Riparian water law has worked well in Michigan for the simple reason that Michigan has abundant water. In fact, Michigan groundwater tables are so high that many homeowners have to install sump pumps just to keep water out of their basements.

The proposed public trust legislation treats groundwater as if we lived in an arid Western state, where water tables can be 1,000 feet or more beneath the surface. In many of these states, water is appropriated by the government, leading to endless conflicts and lawsuits. Mark Twain, who spent time in Nevada, famously quipped about the situation: "Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting."

The Michigan Legislature dealt with recent groundwater concerns with the passage of Public Act 33 of 2006. That law requires a landowner to obtain a groundwater permit in certain circumstances, such as proximity to a trout stream. Public Act 33 was a compromise between environmental groups that believed that all water should belong to the government, and landowners and business groups that wanted to preserve private property water rights. That law has already made it more difficult to use water in the state, removing a competitive advantage Michigan once enjoyed and turning it into a minor liability.

Increasing government control of water in the state would not only be a taking of private property, but would be a serious threat to future economic growth. Access to abundant water in the state is a key advantage Michigan has in attracting much-needed jobs in energy, agriculture and manufacturing, including the so-called green jobs Gov. Jennifer Granholm seeks. The state cannot afford to throw that advantage away, especially since Michigan is not threatened by a shortage of water.

Rather than threatening water rights, Michigan needs to follow the example of Ohio. A ballot initiative amending the Ohio Constitution and protecting the rights of landowners to use groundwater was approved by an impressive 72 percent of the voters in the November 2008 election. The constitutional amendment in Ohio merely codified existing riparian water law, which was similar to the kind used successfully in Michigan for the past century.

Many Michigan officials seem more interested in taking away existing rights of property owners rather than protecting them. It may be time to take the critical issue of property rights directly to the voters, bypassing the political class. As the Ohio example shows, residents understand the importance of property rights better than do many politicians.

Russ Harding is senior environmental analyst and director of the Property Rights Network at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. He may be contacted at harding@mackinac.org.