Rotten politics in porky Iraq funding(Must Read)

The Washington DC Examiner Newspaper ^ | 16 March 2007 | The Washington DC Examiner Newspaper

[radar101]

WASHINGTON - What is it about an appropriations measure that causes sober-minded, hard-working members of Congress to see nothing more than a tax-paid cornucopia of goodies to bestow on friends, neighbors, family members, political allies and anybody else perceived as being potentially helpful in the next election? Judging by the $20 billion in pork found by The Examiner’s Charles Hurt in the Iraq supplemental funding bill before Congress, it would be no surprise to see the ghost of Sir Robert Walpole happily wandering about Capitol Hill.

Historians mark Walpole’s lengthy tenure as prime minister as among the most corrupt in British history because of the unprecedented scope of his use of government funds to secure support in Parliament. The same corrupt process of using public funds to buy congressional votes — lobbyists call it “Christmas treeing” —has become business-as-usual in Congress. President Bush asked for $105 billion in funding to keep U.S. soldiers armed, fed and clothed in Iraq. The request had hardly made it to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue before members were putting prices on their votes.

As a result, the measure has been stuffed with such essential defense measures as:

» $74 million for peanut storage

» $25 million for spinach growers

» $100 million for citrus growers

» $16 million to build new office space for the House of Representatives

» $60 million for Indian tribes and fishermen affected by declining salmon populations in the Northwest

» $50 million for asbestos abatement at the Capitol Hill Power Plant

» $120 million for the shrimp and menhaden industries

» $283 million for extending the small dairy farm income loss contract program

All of these expenditures may well be virtuous, but they have nothing to do with funding the U.S. war effort in Iraq. The reason these items and many more like them are included in the supplemental appropriation is to attract the votes of members who see an opportunity to win favor with special interests back home. Some people call this process log-rolling — you vote for my pork, and I will vote for your critical national security program. We just call it tax-paid bribery.

Shortly after they replaced the GOP majority, the victorious Democrats provided a hopeful sign of determination to clean up the mess in Congress when they promised there would be no earmarks permitted in the Continuing Resolution to keep the government running for the rest of this year. Two months later, their porcine snouts are back in the taxpayers’ trough.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

I'm speechless and shocked! I had not idea the politicians were this way.

/s

[The Pack Knight]

I'll tell you what always shocks me the most about this stuff. Whenever a Congressman is called out over this sort of thing, instead of the sheepish backpedaling you'd expect, they actually defend themselves in a fit of "righteous" anger! These people actually believe they're doing the right thing!! Only in Washington...

The problem, of course, is that their constituents enthusiastically reward this behavior. If there was any argument for term limits, it's this. In fact, the Contract didn't go far enough. I say limit them to one term only in both houses, maybe with the ability to run again if they remain a private citizen for, say, two terms.

[BurtSB]

they forgot the increased payments to planned parenthood in the article.

[org.whodat]

I'm speechless and shocked! I had not idea the politicians were this way. /s

I'm just without words as well!:)

[SCHROLL]

any congressman who has changed their stated voting position from before getting their piece of pork should be brought up on ethics charges for accepting a bribe.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

There should have been a "Yawn" warning on the header. :o)