The Democrats' folly

TownHall.com ^ | June 18,2003 | Tony Blankley

[thegreatbeast]

A few years from now, the current national reporting and commentary will be seen to be utterly blind to the reality of our times.

...(F)or instance, last week, it was reported that President Bush had agreed to "fully fund" port security programs. By fully fund, the reporter meant the president had agreed to the added Democratic spending of $58 million. But, when added to the president's spending proposal, that higher figure will only buy inspection of 2 percent to 5 percent of the containers entering the country. That is only the percentage of "high-risk" containers. But even established shippers (who are not considered high risk) are highly vulnerable to penetration by terrorists. The Coast Guard has quietly suggested that at least 10 times the current spending level would be necessary. But that gets into real money, and it might force Congress and the president to decide whether we need port security more than we need, say, prescription drug subsidies. No such debate will happen.

[thegreatbeast]

An important reminder of the stakes on the table just now. But how many are paying attention and have their minds on what matters?

[tet68]

that gets into real money, and it might force Congress and the president to decide whether we need port security more than we need, say, prescription drug subsidies. No such debate will happen.

Because.........those drug subsidies are important to democrat voters.

Screw them, I'll buy my own drugs if need be, spent the money on port security and the US./mexico border.