No defending some defense bill earmarks

Why was $3.4 million for Lewis and Clark bicentennial activities included in the 2006 defense appropriations bill? How about $3.4 million for Breathalyzers? Or $1 million for a “Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative”? Or $1.7 million for “brown tree snakes”? Or $500,000 for the Arctic Winter Games in Alaska? If Congress insists on paying for such pork, it should do so without the political cover of a bill intended to support national defense.
Posted by Rhonda Holman

2 Comments

  1. writerdog
    Posted January 6, 2006 at 7:12 am | Permalink

    “I am on a roll”: It is hard at time to take this war seriously when even those in the Government seem to not! The very least a country can do when sending it best and brightest in to harms way. Is to insure that they have all they need to safeguard their way fare and to be able to accomplish the mission in the best possible terms.

    Yet here we are, using the very appropriations bill to pad the funding of a wish list!How often have those facing bullets and bombs, wish that they had what they need?There is but one word I can think of to describe such as those that would use a needed funding bill to force through the funding for a minor wish list. But the term for a child born out of wedlock has lost it impact these days!

  2. brown
    Posted January 6, 2006 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    It is enough to make you wish for tax-and-spend democrats, instead of the borrow-and-spend republicans. If we are really at war, why not buy silly little extras, like body armor, and armored vehicles, and things they need to win this war? It is because the current administration and the republicans who control all 3 branches of government feel they can only hold power if they can keep us scared into believing they are keeping us safe. And making it as painless as possible.