Bribery for Peace

21 March 2007



Dems’ War Bill Salted with Pork

Any hopes that the Democrats would lay off the pork barrel spending when they took control of Congress were pipedreams at best. Less than 100 days into the new Congress, a bill that would call for an end to US involvement in Iraq-Nam by August 31, 2008, includes special spending designed to pull conservative Democrats and even Republicans into the “yea” column. While there may well be good reasons for some of the projects, one can’t help but think that it’s bribery pure and simple. What does it say about American democracy when an unpopular war may be ended not by the votes of those who oppose it, but by the votes of those who are securing subsidies for their constituents?

The Washington Post reports a typical situation in the case of Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO).

‘She hates the games the Democrats are playing,’ said Guy Short, chief of staff to Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), a staunch conservative who remains undecided, thanks to billions of dollars in the bill for drought relief and agriculture assistance. ‘But Representative Musgrave was just down in southeastern Colorado, talking to ranchers and farmers, and they desperately need this assistance.’
One can empathize with the dilemma facing the congresswoman. On the one hand, there is the matter of continuing to support her president in a war for Iraq-Namese liberty (or so she’s been told), and on the other hand, there is a genuine demand from her rugged individual, go-it-alone constituents who want Washington to bail them out. Whose need is greater? Which demand merits her support?

The White House has promised to veto any war bill that contained “excessive and extraneous non-emergency spending.” Precisely how the “support-the-troops” White House can veto a war appropriations bill is hard to fathom. Nonetheless, it prepared the groundwork saying the August 31, 2008 cut off date “would place freedom and democracy in Iraq at grave risk” and would “embolden our enemies.” Apparently, the idea is to condemn the cut off date, and blame the Democrats for excessive spending. It could well work.

The Post also notes, “For Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), there is $25 million for spinach growers hurt by last year’s E. coli scare. For three conservative Democrats in Georgia, there is $75 million for peanut storage. For lawmakers from the bone-dry West, there is $500 million for wildfire suppression. An additional $120 million is earmarked for shrimp and Atlantic menhaden fishermen . . . . For more than a year, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R) has tried unsuccessfully to secure federal funds to prevent salt water from intruding on rice fields in his lowland Louisiana district. So it came as a surprise last week when Boustany found $15 million in the House's huge war spending bill for his rice farmers. He hadn’t even asked that the bill include it.”

It brings a whole new meaning to the term “peace at any price.”

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home
Google
WWW Kensington Review







Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More