References, please?
Posted on 08/15/2002 5:58:36 AM PDT by Elkiejg
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today applauded President Bush for withholding $5.1 billion in emergency spending included in the anti-terror supplemental bill. President Bush announced his decision to withhold the money at an economic forum in Waco, Texas, saying Congress had irresponsibly loaded the anti-terrorism bill with projects unrelated to national security.
"President Bush is making good on his threats to reign in Congressional overspending," CAGW President Tom Schatz said. "In a time of war and recession, Congress continues to treat the national treasury like a trillion-dollar cookie jar. The President is now the country's last line of defense against budget deficits and prolonged stagnation caused by an out-of-control Congress."
The $28.6 billion anti-terror spending package signed by Bush gave him the option of approving all or none of a $5.1 billion chunk. In a stern warning to Congress, President Bush said fiscal restraint is essential to economic growth.
"The President is right to affirm the indispensability of budget discipline to economic recovery," continued Schatz. "It's unfortunate the President couldn't go further, because the supplemental contains well over $5.1 billion in wasteful spending."
CAGW found the following pork barrel projects in the fiscal 2002 anti-terror supplemental:
$11 million for economic assistance to New England fisheries;
$6 million for plant and cattle genome sequencing;
$3 million for the drilling of wells in Santa Fe, New Mexico;
$2 million for an alcohol storage facility to house the Smithsonian's worm collection;
A mobile animal slaughter processing unit for the Monterey County, California Economic Development Agency.
"Despite ongoing economic woes making life harder for millions of people, Congress views the costs of war and homeland defense as an excuse to launder tax money to favored constituencies before the next election," concluded Schatz. "Congressional leadership on this issue is nowhere to be found. In particular, Senate Democrats are larding out pork to threatened incumbents at record levels. We hope that the President's firm stand on the supplemental is just practice for using his full veto power on over-stuffed appropriations this fall."
House and Senate appropriators have gone on a spending spree, adding projects not requested by the Pentagon to the 2003 budget, a public spending watchdog group alleges.
Members of Congress are using the Sept. 11 attacks to justify the excesses it wants to add in military construction appropriations bills, the group alleges.
The 2003 military construction appropriations bills contain $662 million in pork spending on the House side and $801 million in the Senate version, according to research by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).
In some cases, lawmakers hid the appropriations in increased defense spending in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the group said.
"It's tough enough to find one needle in one haystack, but if you have five haystacks together, that needle is a lot more difficult to find," said David Williams, vice president of policy with CAGW.
The House military construction bill (HR5001), approved June 27, totaled $10.08 billion, down $522 million from 2002. The Senate version (S2709) approved the same day totaled $10.62 billion, up $18 million from 2002.
Among those cited by CAGW for pork spending included Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, for appropriating $42.9 million for supposedly non-essential projects.
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) added $26.8 million to the Senate bill for non-essential items, CAGW said.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) added $24 million for "unrequested projects," the group said.
On the House side, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) appropriated $5.8 million for military housing in Brunswick, Ga., and $1.6 million for a command and control facility at Fort Stewart.
Williams said the CAGW goes through the bills and looks at projects that trip the group's criteria for pork.
"I don't care if they're a Democrat or a Republican, we look objectively at the process and the way the money was appropriated," he said.
"It's very unfortunate that after September 11th , they still use appropriations for their own personal gain, and during an election year I'm afraid we're going to see more of this," Williams said.
Lawmakers cited in the report, however, took exception to CAGW's interpretation of their spending.
Rob Asbell, district press secretary for Kingston, said the congressman's district is home to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which houses more than 70 federal law enforcement training agencies.
"Obviously since September 11th, that has been of vital importance to national security," Asbell said.
Money appropriated by Kingston is for the refurbishment and renovation of the training center, not military housing, Asbell said.
"They've increased the numbers of law enforcement going to the center and they've got to have someplace to keep them," he said.
The funding obtained by Senator Johnson for Ellsworth Air Force Base and for the National Guard at Camp Rapid was requested by the Air Force and by the South Dakota National Guard, said Bob Martin, communications director with Johnson.
The money will be used to make it safer for Air Force personnel to put live ordnance on bombers and to disperse them so that they are not so threatened by attack, Martin said. It will also fund projects to improve the quality of life for people in base housing, he said.
"I think to call it pork is ridiculous," Martin said.
Senator Stevens could not be reached for comment. However, in answer to similar allegations last year, Stevens denounced CAGW for charging that his "waste" list included runway lights.
"It so happens that 80 villages in Alaska have no roads or hospitals. They depend on medical evacuation by aircraft when people have babies, suffer a heart attack, or have to have medical assistance. Those same villages have no runway lights at all," Stevens told the Senate in March 2001.
"I believe if it is wasteful to make sure a woman in hard labor can deliver her baby in a hospital with a doctor attending, instead of in an airplane hangar with the help of a mechanic, then I am guilty of asking the Senate for pork and proud of the Senate for giving it to me," Stevens said.
Steven Kosiak, director of budget studies with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said it was difficult to define what pork is.
"Some people's definition would include almost everything that Congress adds or changes in the defense budget," he said.
"That's obviously not correct because Congress has an appropriate and constitutional role in passing appropriations bills and they are entitled and expected to make changes to that," he said.
At the other end of the extreme is a small set of programs that, although they vary from year to year, could be considered issues unrelated to national security requirements, Koziak said.
The ones that obviously meet no real national security requirements "is a pretty small number," he said.
...............................................
And Washington wonders why citizens hate politicans!!!!
Meanwhile Bush authorizes $ trillions of spending in tax cuts for the wealthy.
References, please?
Part of the Democrat plan to have all taxes paid by the wealthiest people while those not managing their funds are free to feed off the earnings of those that did manage their funds.
Actually yes it does. My 2 year old grand-nephew. But somehow I don't think that is who you were referring to. ;^)
Yes spread across the spectrum of income, but very heavily tilted to the wealthy.
See post #16.
Reality is that the preponderance of all the tax cuts have been going to the wealthy.
How do you give a tax cut to the poor that don't pay taxes? When the wealthy pay most of the taxes - I guess they deserve a tax cut from time to time. If not, they would be paying 75% of their earnings in taxes.
Yet - I guess you feel they should pay for all other people to live in this wonderful country of opportunity.
Why do you want them to pay for your services?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.