Pork or No Pork? Iraq Funding Bill

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 07:27:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President Bush says the Democrats' bill hurts the troops. He's says there's too much pork in the bill.

The Washington Post reports:

The bill provides about $95.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as more than $20 billion in new domestic spending for such items as agricultural subsidies, veterans' health care and rebuilding efforts in Gulf Coast states hit by hurricanes two years ago. Among other things, it provides about $3.5 billion in additional funding above Bush's request to address the health care problems faced by veterans and by returning service members wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan.

...More

To help deal with an expected spring offensive by the Taliban in Afghanistan, the bill adds $1.2 billion to Bush's funding request for military operations in that country. But it also includes such expenditures as $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans, $500 million for wildfire suppression, $250 million for milk subsidies, $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $25 million for spinach farmers in California.

I don't see how providing for health care for veterans and the returning troops hurts them. It seems to me it's Bush who's hurting them by threatening a veto. Farmers need help too. What difference does it make which bill their subsidies come in?

I'm not seeing the pork.

Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette, in an e-mail to constituents today, said:

This legislation will spur the government of Iraq to take the lead in addressing the challenges of the Iraqi people. It establishes benchmarks for the Iraqi government. Failure to meet these benchmarks would result in accelerating the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
I voted for this legislation because it is a good-faith compromise that ensures the safety of our troops while definitively changing our course in Iraq. I believe that this plan is the beginning of a strategy by which we can finally bring a responsible end to this irresponsible war.

< House Passes Troop Pullout Deadline in Iraq Funding Bill | I Like Hillary Too >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pork or No Pork? Iraq Funding Bill | 6 comments (6 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Sometimes pork tastes good (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by roy on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:00:29 PM EST

The question of whether it's pork doesn't hinge on whether it's money well spent. It hinges on whether its attached to unrelated legislation as a way to get it passed without being evaluated on its own merits, or whether it's shuffling money to special (even good special) interests.

Several of those spending items seem to qualify.

How many Dems got elected on promises to end the war and fight the porky mentality? Now they're using a war-prologing bill as a pork delivery mechanism.

(Disclosure: I've given up on remembering whether "it's" or "its" is supposed to have an apostrophe.)

Ag subsidies? (none / 0) (#1)
by Walter in Denver on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:54:35 PM EST

Jeralyn, you're the last person I'd expect to see defending corporate welfare!

hey can not win the debate, so they try to buy it. (none / 0) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:12:57 AM EST

I don't see how providing for health care for veterans and the returning troops hurts them.

The issue is simply that the Demos are using taxpayer money to buy votes for a political position they support.

Of course! (none / 0) (#4)
by Sailor on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:52:49 AM EST

actually supporting the troops with the equipment and healthcare they need after years of rethuglicans ignoring it is just pandering for votes. And where else should the money come from but taxpayers? The $ to start the war came from taxpayers. They money to fight the war came from taxpayers, the money for the weapons that injured the soldiers probably came from taxpayers, (remember; ppj endorsed saddam before he was against him.) Why shouldn't the $ to care for them come from taxpayers.

But this just shows how much jim hates the troops, he'll send then to fight die or get injured, but god forbid he sees a penny for their healthcare after they get wounded.

Rethugs start wars and spend billions on no-bid contracts for their cronies, swear they support the troops, but don't want to spend the $$ for armor and healthcare.


: Sailor joins squeaky (none / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:30:30 AM EST

Sailor, I see that you are using the Squeaky smear tactic....
Just make it up and spew it out.
Why don't you Google up military spending during the Clinton admin?

Not Seeing the Pork?? (none / 0) (#6)
by Makemesick on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 07:52:30 AM EST

Jeralyn, you are not seeing the pork in the Iraq Budget bill?? I recommend seeing your local opthamologist asap!
The brilliant Harry Reid has added $1 million to the bill for repair of billboards when the wind knocks them down. Why? Because some billboard company in Nevada supported his last campaign.
This is pork, plain and simple, and it makes me sick!!