03/23/07 — No pork, just vote: Spending plan should not include pet project money

View Archive

No pork, just vote: Spending plan should not include pet project money

If you really believe that there ought to be a bill that passes Congress that sets a specific date for a withdrawal from the war in that country — why must you have a promise of federal money for your constituents to cast it?

One of the concerns that many of those who debated and voted on the resolution before the U.S. House of Representatives today is that the resolution is more than simply a vote on money for troops. They say the spending plan is full of “pork” spending used to get legislators to vote in favor of the measure.

And although we all like the results that receiving more money from the U.S. government bring, the truth is the last thing this country needs is more unnecessary spending — especially if, in essence, it is “bribe” money.

Those who cast their ballots in the House today and those who will consider the measure in the Senate later, should have made their decisions based on conviction.

If they feel strongly that a spending plan that funds the efforts of the troops overseas must have an exit date attached, they should cast their votes in that manner.

And if getting their vote requires some sort of “payment” we do not need them in office making any kind of leadership decision.

We as taxpayers are not innocent in encouraging this behavior. We want “stuff” for our communities — as much stuff as possible. We rarely think about who really is paying for that new pork project. And for some reason, our legislators think we must have those dollars to be impressed with the job our representatives are doing.

So that is probably why a vote could be turned with the promise of the inclusion of funding for a pet project in a bill that could change the future of this nation.

Enough is enough. Take out the “incentives” and everything else that does not relate to the troops or the war effort — then ask for honest votes.

We will see what happens then.

Published in Editorials on March 23, 2007 11:22 AM