More Questions About Rep. Schakowsky’s Mystery Earmark

Capitol Confidential
BigGovernment.com
7/12/2010

Recently, Big Government told of a proposed fiscal year 2009 federal budget earmark intended for the Save-A-Life Foundation (SALF), a Chicago-area nonprofit that went belly-up late last year. The article questioned why IL Democrat Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who introduced the appropriation, wanted to fund SALF years after the charity was the subject of a string of media exposes, including four hard-hitting ABC7 Chicago I-Team reports.

Rep. Schakowsky eventually cancelled her earmark for SALF, perhaps in response to scrutiny last January from a conservative blogger, Doug Ross. She wouldn’t answer his questions then, and, according to Big Government, she still won’t now.  Here’s what Ross and Big Government wanted to know:

1. What was the dollar amount of Schakowsky’s intended 2009 earmark for SALF?

2. Why was Rep. Schakowsky funding a non-profit years after it was the subject of four ABC7 News Chicago exposes?

3. What’s the relationship between Rep. Schakowsky and the charity’s founder/president Carol J. Spizzirri, whose organization obtained “at least $8.6 million in federal and state grants”? (Chicago Tribune)

4. Does Rep. Schakowsky think SALF should be investigated in order to determine if those millions were properly spent?

Since Rep. Schakowsky’s 2009 SALF earmark didn’t get funded, do these questions matter? Why not let this sleeping dog lie and…move along, nothing to see here?  On the other hand, one might ask if this illustrates the degree of due diligence Rep. Schakowsky applies to all her funding requests.

But this article isn’t about those questions, it’s about this question: Since the money didn’t go through, why should Schakowsky refuse to disclose the facts or answer whether or not she thinks the organization should be investigated? Since the ABC7 series, others have raised more questions about SALF and what happened to all the money they received? (And so will we, in a later article.)

The article continues at BigGovernment.com

Comments are closed.