Buying votes to win elections is a long-established tradition for the Democrat Party going back to the days when poor blacks in the South would sell their votes for a couple of dollars and continuing today with the efforts of ACORN to buy votes in dozens of states nationwide. Now it turns out that the techniques which work so well with voters work equally well on Capitol Hill, as demonstrated this week with the passage of the new Supplemental Spending bill.
There weren't quite enough votes in either of the houses of Congress pass the latest bill to appropriate supplemental funds for the Iraq War - once the Democrats had loaded it up with special conditions and an accelerated and unrealistic timetable for withdrawal. Some opposed it out of party loyalty and some opposed it on principle and some opposed it because it was obviously politically motivated and a bad idea. The margins were close, but as it turned out, there were a few in both the House and Senate whose opposition to the bill was weaker than their greed.
So, unable to pass the bill on its merits, Democrats desperate to make absolutely clear that they are pro-defeat and want to leave Iraq in chaos, remaining true to the traditions of their party, decided to bribe the more vulnerable opponents of the bill with lavish allocations of pork. And just to make sure that the bill passed both the House and Senate it got a double helping of pork, some for Congressmen and some for Senators.
The end result is the addition of about $20 billion in pure, refined pork to the bill, most of it specifically targeted to the interests of specific representatives or powerful individuals or groups in Congress. This despite a moratorium on earmarks declared last year, which helped cut the deficit in half three years earlier than the President's budget plan. Congressional leaders have called off the moratorium and declared full speed ahead on pork spending. They clearly see it as an opportunity to sneak in the pork they've been denied for several years.
As I've discussed before, the root of the problem is Representative David Obey (D-WI) who is now chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He's like the fox in the henhouse, and he made sure that the prime cut of pork went to his supporters in the dairy industry who get $283 million in subsidies - almost 10 times what Obey was able to get them in the last Republican controlled budget. Don't worry, plenty of others get their cut too. There's $425 million for educational grants to rural areas to win votes in the farm belt. There's $165.9 million for fisheries in Oregon, $10 million for the Florida citrus industry, $25 million for spinach growers, $20 million to catch crickets in Harry Reid's home state of Nevada and lots of other little prizes to make sure that pro-war Democrats and moderate Republicans in the right states played along. Nonetheless, the bill only passed the House by 6 votes because 14 Democrats voted against it. In the Senate, rather than making anyone take responsibility for their actions, all of the Republicans voted for the bill, leaving it up to the President to deal with it with his promised veto.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - BARBARABOW
Three words: "Bridge to Nowhere".
2 - David Scrue
Thank you thank you thank you Mr. Dave for explaining why it's all the fault of those irresponsible democrats that the federal government has increased in size 40% in the last 6 years. And why we have trillion dollar debts.
3 - Clavos
The bill does at least include a substantial increase in funds for veteran health care, both DoD and VA.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation Daily Report:
The legislation includes $3.5 billion more than Bush requested for DOD and Department of Veterans Affairs health care programs...
4 - JayMagoo
You neglect the fact that it was the greed of Bush, Cheney, and their buddies in the petroleum industry who wanted to steal Iraq's oil fields that got us into this misbegotten war in the first place. More than 3,000 US troops (many of them my former Army colleagues) have been killed, and by latest reckoning up to a half a million Iraqis, all because Bush wanted to (1) steal Iraq's petroleum for Exxon, Conoco, etc., and (2) wanted to be remembered as a "war president."
The insanity of Bush's adventure is overwhelming. It must be stopped.
5 - Sisyphus
"...the Democrat Party.."
Try to at least get the name right. It is the "Democratic" Party. A proper noun. Just because (or especially because) Rush Limbaugh and George Bush misuse a term, does not make it correct.
6 - Dave Nalle
Thank you thank you thank you Mr. Dave for explaining why it's all the fault of those irresponsible democrats that the federal government has increased in size 40% in the last 6 years. And why we have trillion dollar debts.
I don't believe there's one word in this article blaming the Democrats for the past overspending or absolving the Republicans for their turn at porkmongering.
The issue is just this particular bill which has a specific purpose and has been so cynically abused by the Democrats.
Dave
7 - Dave Nalle
The bill does at least include a substantial increase in funds for veteran health care, both DoD and VA.
That's part of the regular budget which is being considered at the same time as this supplemental appropriations bill.
In addition to that VA health spending which is a regular line item, not a special earmark, there are close to 10,000 earmarks in the actual budget adding up to $130 billion in pork, and that doesn't include the veterans healthcare spending.
Dave
8 - Clavos
Dave,
Perhaps I should have quoted more of the article I cited. The way I read this, the funds I mentioned are included in the supplemental appropriation for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan bill.
Here's the whole 'graph I quoted from previously:
House Approves Supplemental Appropriations Bill
In other budget news, the House on Friday voted 218-212 to approve a $124 billion supplemental appropriations bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that would provide additional funds for veterans' health care programs, the Wall Street Journal reports (Rogers, Wall Street Journal, 3/24). The legislation includes $3.5 billion more than Bush requested for DOD and Department of Veterans Affairs health care programs, as well as $1 billion for avian flu preparedness. The bill also would provide $750 million for SCHIP. The legislation exceeded the amount that Bush requested by about $21 billion, with almost half of the additional funds allocated for nonmilitary programs (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 3/23). "Within minutes of passage, Bush denounced the bill" because of provisions that would establish a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. "The Democrats have sent their message," Bush said, adding, "Now it's time to send their money." The Senate this week will consider a similar bill (Weisman, Washington Post, 3/24).
9 - Dave Nalle
Maybe it didn't make it through to the Senate version. I can't find any earmarks in there which are more than $1 billion, but it's a pain in the ass navigating the Thomas site and finding the right bills. I do see appropriations matching those numbers in the regular budget.
Dave
10 - Dave Nalle
Try to at least get the name right. It is the "Democratic" Party. A proper noun. Just because (or especially because) Rush Limbaugh and George Bush misuse a term, does not make it correct.
I occasionally join them in indulging in leaving the 'ic' off in recognition of how fundamentally opposed to democratic government the D party is. In this article, when talking about vote buying it seemed inappropriate to use the 'ic'.
Dave
11 - Michael J. West
Oh, for God's sweet sake. Must we continue to pretend that EITHER party is any different from the other in terms of pandering, corruption, greed, arrogance, irresponsibility, conniving, hedging, or any of the other qualities that are inherent to the very nature of politics?
12 - Dave Nalle
Michael, there ARE some differences. You get to pick which groups they pander to and which issues they shamelessly exploit. Sometimes that can work out to your benefit.
Dave
13 - Michael J. West
Superficial differences at best, Dave.
14 - Dave Nalle
Superficial? Assuming that all else is the same, those panderings and special issues are what we get out of our government. It's the difference between tax cuts and expanded social spending. It's the difference between protecting civil liberties and state mandated political correctness. It's more than just superficial.
Dave
15 - moonraven
Bunk, Dave.
The US political system has become a one-party system with two different names.
Just a gringo version of what Mario Vargas Llosa called The Perfect Dictatorship in reference to Mexico during the 70-year PRI control here.
Totalitarian states may look different but they have in common the utter lack of meaningful options.
Get off the pot, Dave, and stop shitting us.
16 - Z.Z. Bachman
I wonder what Jefferson and Franklin would be saying if they were alive today regarding our present two party system? Come to think of it, I don't recall the "founding fathers" ever specifying that a democratic form of government should ever be dominated by two parties. In fact I suspect they would have deplored it. Hmmm.... perhaps they should have done a little more deep thinking when they drew up the Constitution.
The two parties in our "system" both need a good kick in the ass by Independents if you ask me. Hey.... let's give some credit to Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT-I) and some of the others, which I am sure many here can list, that find some integrity, sanity (or maybe perceived political safety) by moving more to the middle of the spectrum and adopting a more collaborative style.
Maybe these few recognize what the current state of political affairs is doing to bolster the psyche of this nation's enemies. Yes, that's right, we have enemies. And before you start blaming each other's parties for that, it won't mean a damn thing when the unthinkable happens. Neither party has a claim on immortality the last I looked. While our so called "leaders" do their best to tear each other apart, the rest of the country feels absolutely ashamed at the lack of leadership and solidarity on virtually ANY issue these days on the Hill that once made this country's form of government the envy of the world.
17 - Dave Nalle
I don't recall the "founding fathers" ever specifying that a democratic form of government should ever be dominated by two parties. In fact I suspect they would have deplored it.
Washington had some very specific and very negative things to say about political parties in general. He thought there should be no parties at all. Not terribly realistic, but I suspect that he would have preferred many parties to just two.
Dave
18 - troll
to quote Clavos from another thread:
*Politicians and the governments they work for are economic parasites; they produce nothing but regulation (restriction), and harassment, and in extreme cases, oppression*
seems to fit here as we discuss parasitical differences
19 - MBD
"I wonder what Jefferson and Franklin would be saying if they were alive today regarding our present two party system?"
I didn't know there were two.
I only see one monolithic lobby in control of the US government.
20 - Sisyphus
Sure, it's a sad reality that legislators on both sides of the aisle buy and sell votes like there's no tomorrow. Pork barrel spending reached a record $29 billion last year, according to CAGW. The Republicans were then in charge, but now you expect this to change because of a Democratic majority? Heck, it's the Republicans that are supposedly the party of limited government, which I'm all for. But actions speak louder than words. And fiscal responsibility is evidently an unknown concept to either party.
21 - Arch Conservative
Moonraven .....why do you insist on offering the pontifications of those residing in third world Latin American shitholes?
Don't you realize that not only is it irrelevant but no one gives a damn?
22 - Dave Nalle
Sure, it's a sad reality that legislators on both sides of the aisle buy and sell votes like there's no tomorrow. Pork barrel spending reached a record $29 billion last year, according to CAGW.
You must have read the wrong CAGW page. Last I checked pork spending was considerably higher than that annually. But last year may have been low because of the earmark moratorium.
The Republicans were then in charge, but now you expect this to change because of a Democratic majority?
No, I expect it to get dramatically and substantially worse. If that $29 billion figure is correct, then consider it in light of the $130 billion in pork the Democrats have put into the FY 2008 budget.
Dave
23 - Michael J. West
God damn it! I hate the two-party system. One of the worst natural outgrowths of it is this stupid, blind, Manichean worldview where your side is bad, my side is the victim of your side, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Joe Lieberman and Chuck Hagel form their own opinions and are "traitors" or "[Party Member] in Name Only."
When I switched my voter registration from Democrat to Independent, my parents were actually more scandalized than when I left the Catholic Church they brought me up in.
Well, I came back to the Democrats. And I did it for the simple and exclusive reason that D.C. is a one-party town, and the real election contests in local governments are the Democratic Primary. And it makes me sick every time I think of myself as a Democrat. Not that it would make me any less (or more) sick to think of myself as a Republican.
Political parties are far too much like religions in this country. As fucking insanely religious as the U.S. is, it's your party affiliation that people really use to determine whether you're working for God or the Devil.
And I'm goddamned sick to death of it. Democrats, Republicans, you all need to get a grip on reality. You have the same petty weaknesses, the same inherent strengths and flaws of organization, and each one of you, no matter how hard you try to pass the buck and point the finger at the other party, is absolutely ready to sell yourself for the promise of short-term political power.
The Hell with all of them. There ought to be at least a half-dozen mainstream political parties in this country, and we're stuck with this shit.
Is it possible to be a political Freethinker? I hereby declare myself one.
24 - MBD
Both parties are responsible for digging the hole we are in, and we have been told repeatedly the way out is to keep digging.
“The federal budget is structurally unbalanced. This will do increasing damage to the economy and is unsustainable in the long term. Regardless of the approach chosen, prompt and meaningful action is essential. The longer it is delayed, the more painful it will be.”
These are the words of the General Accounting Office 15 years ago.
Instead of heeding this warning, our politicians have made things get progressively worse.
For this, we can thank lobbyists and their lackey politicians who seek re-election above all else; above the the interests of the American people, both current and future generations.
25 - Michael J. West
Et tu, Dave Nalle?
You know, insofar as the insular, one-dimensional blogosphere goes, I consider you a friend (which I suspect you do know). I respect you, I like you, I value your perspective. You're a thinker, despite the silly and meaningless shit the MCHs and Moonravens and Sharks of this site throw at you. And I tend to think of you as not only a moderate, but an intellectually honest one.
So it actually hurts to see you putting out playbook, talk-radio hyperbole like how the Democrats are "pro-defeat and want to leave Iraq in chaos," when both you and I know for a fact that you know better.
I'm disappointed, Dave. I expected more from you.