Should American troops die for pork?
May 9, 2006 | By Nathaniel Ward
Last Friday, the Senate passed a pork-bloated emergency spending bill originally intended to fund our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and to help clean up after Hurricane Katrina. Weighing in at $109 billion, it costs $17 billion more than President Bush asked for—and the President has made it very clear he will veto anything that costs more than $92.2 billion.
So now some creative big-spenders in the Senate leadership’s staff have proposed a bogus “compromise” that would weasel out of the veto and reward special interests. Since the veto is tied to the total amount spent, the new plan would cap total spending at the requested $92.2 billion—by an across-the-board cut of about 13 percent.
Normally, an across-the-board cut is something to celebrate, but this one would be done for all the wrong reasons. In order to squeeze in all the pork projects the Senate passed, this “compromise” would cut each pork project by a small amount. It would also make larger cuts to funding for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq—possibly costing the lives of those defending our country—and slash spending for Hurricane Katrina recovery.
Are we going to risk the lives of American troops so Congress can reward its special-interest friends?
This has it all backwards: the goal of the bill is to fund the troops and to clean up after Katrina, not to funnel money to wealthy corporations, social programs or other non-essential ends. “This ploy just highlights the terrible trade-offs that pork-barrel spending leads lawmakers to make,” Heritage’s Andrew Grossman writes.
A responsible bill would fund the nation’s most urgent priorities and not shovel money at pet projects. The President must make absolutely clear he will tolerate no more of these games from Congress. He should firm up his already strong veto threat to ensure that Congress knows with certainty that he will veto any emergency spending bill if it contains even one pork project.
With this new round of shameless pork, Congress is sending a signal that it cares more for its special interest friends than for the safety and security of the nation. As Heritage’s Baker Spring writes, “the Senate, and most particularly those senators serving on the Appropriations Committee, is holding the safety and well-being of American troops serving abroad hostage in order to slake its thirst for spending on narrow constituencies.” This is yet another reason why Congress must act quickly to reform earmarks.
What Congress will be cutting
Brian Riedl, Heritage’s Grover Hermann Fellow, figured out what Congress would have to cut to leave the pork in place:
- $9.6 billion from war on terror efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
- $2.6 billion from Katrina relief
- $304 million from avian flu preparedness
Heritage’s Baker Spring did a little number-crunching and came up with a list of what these “savings’ might cost the military:
- 255,000 sets of updated equipment, including new helmets and other gear to make our troops safer, more mobile and more effective
- 200 Stryker vehicles
- 20 next-generation F/A-22 fighter planes
- 10 next-generation Osprey troop transport aircraft
- 10 C-17 cargo planes
- 3 Navy vessels, including a destroyer
And the pork the Senate wants to keep
These are just some of the “emergency” pork projects that would remain in the cut-down emergency spending bill, as compiled by Brian Riedl:
- $608 million to facilitate a casino/condo based redevelopment scheme in Mississippi
- $3.4 billion in additional farm subsidies
- $967 million to fund fisheries
- $516 million in unrelated highway aid
- $17 million for AmeriCorps
Are you appalled by this?
- Send this e-mail to five colleagues, friends and family members
- Visit the MyHeritage.org Activist Toolkit to find out how you can help
They know where we stand. And where we work
Columnist Fred Barnes, writing in The Weekly Standard, explained yesterday that President Bush doesn’t always take conservative positions on the issues. When he asked the White House for comment, this was the response: “The president works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, not 214 Massachusetts Avenue N.E.” (214 Massachusetts Avenue, of course, is the location of The Heritage Foundation.) It’s good to know the White House knows where to turn for conservative policy solutions.
In other news
- Tax revenues continue to come in at a record pace, the government reports (link in PDF). Much of the growth in revenue, the data shows, comes from taxes levied on the wealthiest Americans—and this is after the tax cuts liberals say benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle class (read the debunking of this liberal myth).
- President Bush has nominated Gen. Michael Hayden to replace Porter Goss as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He may face a hard fight in confirmation hearings as liberals press him on his involvement with the President's terrorist monitoring program, which intercepts calls from known terrorists to contacts in the United States.
- Responding to Iran’s repeated threats to "wipe Israel off the map," vice premier Shimon Peres said that “the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map.”
Coming up at Heritage
To attend these or any other Heritage Foundation events, RSVP at Heritage’s events website. Or you can watch these events live online at Heritage.org. All times are Eastern.
- On Thursday, May 11 at noon, Fox News anchor Eric Shawn will speak at Heritage about the inefficiency, corruption, and extreme anti-American agenda of the United Nations.
- On Thursday, May 11 at 1:00pm, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) will discuss the ongoing battle to control wasteful earmarks as an essential first step on the road to reining in our nation’s finances.
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.
