McHorny's $3.25 mil belies so-called anti-earmark "crusade"

Two earmarks for $3.25 million.

That's what Pat McHorny wrote letters asking for this year while promoting himself as an anti-earmark crusader on the House floor:

"We need to lay clear these earmarks . . . so the American people can judge the worthiness of the programs and the money allocated to them."

And now he's saying he won't ever ask for any earmarks, starting next year.

From the Winston Salem Journal:

This year Sen. Patrick McHenry, R-10th, has emerged as one of Congress’ most outspoken critics of earmarks. He also has pledged, starting next year, not to seek earmarks for new projects unless they had been authorized - but not yet paid for - by Congress

Click here to see his April letter for a $2,250,000 grant to a company called Mariner Containers in Granite Falls, NC. They are supposed to be making "Smart Containers" but so far they haven't made anything smarter than a plastic septic tank. I wonder what other companies would have liked to bid for this project? And would they have done the work better or cheaper?

Click here for his request for $1,000,000 to go to a Valdese, NC subsidiary of a French Corporation called Saft, which already had a $31 million contract to provide batteries to the US military. They hardly need a $1 million rebate. And the profit from this essentially no-bid contract goes to some wealthy Frenchmen? I'm sure 10th District constituents can appreciate that irony.

Yeah, Pat, it's obvious you are a true crusader against earmarks.

From the Winston Salem Journal, these are some other North Carolina earmarks:

❑ $1 million for “alternatives to transplantation” research at Wake Forest.

❑ $100,000 for “technology for rural schools.”

❑ $150,000 for electronic medical records at Alleghany Memorial Hospital.

❑ $500,000 for sewage and water infrastructure in Mount Airy.

❑ $376,000 for high-tech equipment for the Winston-Salem Police Department.

❑ $300,000 for biofuel research at Appalachian State University.

[Note that no traditional press has reported either of McHorny's earmarks.]

From The Crypt at polico.com in July when he was asked about a $129,000 Christmas Tree earmark that even fellow Republicans voted against.

"Look, the important thing is transparency and openness," McHenry said when asked about the earmark, which he confirmed that he had inserted into the bill. "I have never been opposed to directed spending."

McHenry added: "I just think that it's critical for members to know what they are voting on when a [spending] bill comes to the floor."

Now, Pat, I have to say you're right. Not knowing what is being voted on is a bad thing.

So we don't know why these two companies you like so much had to avoid the normal Pentagon procurement process. Is there some reason they otherwise wouldn't have gotten these contracts? Are there other American companies who would have done the work for less, or sooner or of a better quality? If not, why the end-around? Why the secrecy? You were right, Pat, that transparency is important. That would seem even more significant in regard to defense contracts where lives could be at stake.

And now the American people are left to wonder what are you hiding about your connection to these companies that inspired you to procure them millions in secret?