After reading Nick Hemenway’s article I often wonder what color the sky is in his world. It must be nice living in a world where Republicans are anti-pork and support the troops while the Democrats are just the opposite. After reading Nick’s article a few more thoughts went through my mind.
If wars cost money why did President Bush cut taxes? Does it not seem irresponsible to take in less money when you need to spend more of it? Oh wait he decided to support our troops by cutting spending in things like troop wages, healthcare, and proper equipment like body armor and armor plated vehicles.
The emergency spending bill would not have been a problem is Bush had budgeted for the war in his federal budgets. Instead Bush did not so he could present the appearance of fiscal discipline. It sure looks good when you supposedly cut federal spending, and I guess appearing to spend less supports our troops.
Furthermore it was the Republican congress that did not pass a federal budget for 2007; instead they took more days off then any other congress. If Bush wanted money they could have funded the war, but I guess vacations are more important than our troops.
The ‘pork’ in the spending bill is pennies compared to past Republican emergency spending bills. In 2005 the Republicans approved a bill for 82 billion loaded with pork. In 2006 the Republicans set the record for pork barrel spending. The Republicans pork went to things like building a bridge to nowhere and building snowmobile trails. The Democrats pork goes to help rebuild New Orleans, fund agriculture disasters, and a minimum wage increase. I guess that helping disaster victims, farmers, and poor people is bad for the troops.
If Bush doesn’t sign the bill he is equally responsible for the troops not receiving funding if not more so since the Democrats did approve spending. I guess the point of Nick’s article was that Republican pork spending is good, Democrat pork spending is bad.