Congressional Welfare
Just the other day, I spoke out about corporate welfare. Well, those high and mighty industrialists aren't the only one that have no problems with taking advantage of the gummint; our own legislators aren't above raiding the federal treasury for their own political purposes. This article from the Boston Globe discusses how Congressfolks are stuffing lots of pork into the Defense appropriation bills under cover of the current invasion of Iraq, and our involvement in Afghanistan.
While a bit of pork is part of politics and to be expected to some degree, I find it inappropriate at a time when we have spiraling deficits and real concerns elsewhere (oh, like a troubled economy, cuts in services for those of us that make less than $1 million a year, global warming, etc., etc.) for our elected officials to be padding the budget above and beyond what even our spendthrift "president" has allocated.
As the article states, quite a few of these earmarked projects have nothing to do with Iraq or terrorism: I'd like to know what "defending our freedoms" (excuse me while I snicker) has to do with a wastewater treatment plant or a research hospital, for starters.
This kind of thing has been going on for years, and isn't limited to either party: both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of pushing through pet projects so they can go back to their district and crow over bringing home the bacon. While some requests are legitimate on their own, others aren't, and all are probably better off being under the province of and funded by state and local governments.
What really ticks me off is that everyone is ready to throw money at pork, at weapons systems, at projects that will devise new ways to kill people, but at the same time they'll aid in cutting education, housing, Medicaid, and dozens of other programs that actually HELP people and benefit our society as a whole. For example, Smirk wants to eliminate Upward Bound, a federal program that helps poor kids who come from backgrounds where a college education is unknown achieve the opportunity to go to college; all vocational ed at the high school level; housing for the disabled, and housing grants for Native Americans (we took away their land, massacred them, herded them onto reservations composed of land "we" didn't want, and now we just screw them over again...), just to name a few specific programs.
It isn't just the defense budget that gets padded; all of them do, to some extent. It'd be nice if our gummint officials actually acted like real people for a change, and drafted a budget that not only was realistic, but conformed to reality. When I draft my household budget, the first thing I do is I don't spend money I don't have. The second thing is, I make sure all of the basics are covered: shelter, food, utilities, transportation, education (if I need it, and in the past, I've needed it!), health expenses, and *then* I might add in some "pork" for fun or carefree spending. When I'm confronted with a choice between rent and guns, I don't spend cash on the latest weapon; I go to the grocery store and make sure I'll make it through the month. Our gummint seems to prefer spending on guns and weapons in general than in making sure their constituents and taxpayers have the basics.
I don't care how wonderful an individual lawmaker may be; I think it's time to toss them all out and start over again, but of course, this'll never happen. I can still hope that somewhere in some district the citizenry will come to their senses and elect someone who actually is responsible enough to maintain our government the way it should be run-- and that's without massive debt, for one thing. A sense of responsibility towards the general population and not just the well-heeled, for another. Finally, some sense of compassion, which is missing from this so-called "compassionate conservative" bunch that's occupying D.C. these days.
While a bit of pork is part of politics and to be expected to some degree, I find it inappropriate at a time when we have spiraling deficits and real concerns elsewhere (oh, like a troubled economy, cuts in services for those of us that make less than $1 million a year, global warming, etc., etc.) for our elected officials to be padding the budget above and beyond what even our spendthrift "president" has allocated.
As the article states, quite a few of these earmarked projects have nothing to do with Iraq or terrorism: I'd like to know what "defending our freedoms" (excuse me while I snicker) has to do with a wastewater treatment plant or a research hospital, for starters.
This kind of thing has been going on for years, and isn't limited to either party: both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of pushing through pet projects so they can go back to their district and crow over bringing home the bacon. While some requests are legitimate on their own, others aren't, and all are probably better off being under the province of and funded by state and local governments.
What really ticks me off is that everyone is ready to throw money at pork, at weapons systems, at projects that will devise new ways to kill people, but at the same time they'll aid in cutting education, housing, Medicaid, and dozens of other programs that actually HELP people and benefit our society as a whole. For example, Smirk wants to eliminate Upward Bound, a federal program that helps poor kids who come from backgrounds where a college education is unknown achieve the opportunity to go to college; all vocational ed at the high school level; housing for the disabled, and housing grants for Native Americans (we took away their land, massacred them, herded them onto reservations composed of land "we" didn't want, and now we just screw them over again...), just to name a few specific programs.
It isn't just the defense budget that gets padded; all of them do, to some extent. It'd be nice if our gummint officials actually acted like real people for a change, and drafted a budget that not only was realistic, but conformed to reality. When I draft my household budget, the first thing I do is I don't spend money I don't have. The second thing is, I make sure all of the basics are covered: shelter, food, utilities, transportation, education (if I need it, and in the past, I've needed it!), health expenses, and *then* I might add in some "pork" for fun or carefree spending. When I'm confronted with a choice between rent and guns, I don't spend cash on the latest weapon; I go to the grocery store and make sure I'll make it through the month. Our gummint seems to prefer spending on guns and weapons in general than in making sure their constituents and taxpayers have the basics.
I don't care how wonderful an individual lawmaker may be; I think it's time to toss them all out and start over again, but of course, this'll never happen. I can still hope that somewhere in some district the citizenry will come to their senses and elect someone who actually is responsible enough to maintain our government the way it should be run-- and that's without massive debt, for one thing. A sense of responsibility towards the general population and not just the well-heeled, for another. Finally, some sense of compassion, which is missing from this so-called "compassionate conservative" bunch that's occupying D.C. these days.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 7:20 PM
<< Home