Iraq War Emergency Bill Has Millions in Non-War Pork
 |
James Joyner | Friday, March 16, 2007 |
Sean Hackbarth goes through the Iraq War Emergency Supplemental and pulls out millions upon millions in spending for items unrelated to the Iraq War or any sort of emergency whatsoever. Some of the spending may well be legitimate (I certainly don’t oppose speedy death benefits payment to Charlie Norwood’s widow, for example), and others are justified at least in terms of precedent, but most of it appears on its face to be clearly outrageous.
Now, there’s not much partisan hay to be made here since, goodness knows, the Republicans had more pork than a Jimmy Dean sausage factory in their bills. It does demonstrate, however, that promises to come to Washington and impose spending restraint are almost always laughably hollow. We’re barely two months into the new Democratic Congress and already any pretense is over.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- OTB Latenight - Jim Croce
- Caption Contest Winners
- What’s the Opposite of Schadenfreude?
- Posse Comitatus? Its a Stupid Law Anyways
- Obama’s Short National Security Team
- Wire Politics
- 10 Funniest Political Quotes Of 2008 -
- Memeorandum Beats Google News
- US in Recession Since December 2007
- Sex Offender Registry Stupidity
- Buying Their Way to Defeat: House Democrats’ Iraq War Emergency Bill linked with The American Mind
- Little Miss Attila linked with Earning Their Pork Chops...
Now, there’s not much partisan hay to be made here since, goodness knows, the Republicans had more pork than a Jimmy Dean sausage factory in their bills.
The difference is that Porky Pelosi has been running aginst "pork" in her effort to "reform" the House.
She probably put an order in there to funnel money for a yacht to go along with her luxury taxpayer-funded jet.
It would be great if the Dems did give up the pork - they would then be able to take the moral high ground. However, I understand the argument against "unilaterally disarming" and don't really mind if the Dems do it too while working towards eliminating for both sides.
Also, if pork makes up a small percentage of the budget, it doesn't seem contradictory to be for spending restraint but still get some pork for your district.
Mark: The Dems have the majority in Congress. It's a matter of 'Well, they're doing it' only because they choose to keep collecting pork. That 'new broom' seems to have gotten mislaid somewhere.
Comments are Closed
