CHANGE MY LOCATION
Politics
Examiners
Right Side Politics Examiner
Most Recent Post
CNN exposes ACORN's fradulant voter registration
California News
Multimedia News
Congress trims pork from war spending bill
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: Washington DC
)
Some of the fat was trimmed by Congress. Will it be enough?
Washington DC (Map, News) - Congress stripped out much of the most widely criticized pork projects in the "emergency" war spending bill but retained more than $20 billion in extra spending that President Bush did not request for the war effort.
Removed from the bill was $74 million for peanut storage, $40 million in assistance for Christmas tree growers and $27 million for sugar beet farmers.
The deletions, which were made public Wednesday, came after withering criticism of Congress for inserting the pet projects in a bill to pay for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush promised to veto the bill because it contained so much pork as well as "arbitrary" timetables for withdrawal.
Also stripped out of the bill was $20 million to defray costs of eradicating the insect infestation in Nevada and other states, $25 million for spinach growers in California and elsewhere, and $3.5 million for guided tours of the U.S. Capitol.
Still in the bill is $20 million for dairy producers and $21 million for migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
The bill also continues the Milk Income Loss Contract Program, an additional handout to the dairy industry. Anti-pork Republicans in Congress estimate that extending the milk program will cost $31 million this year and $2.4 billion over the next ten years.
"Democrats tried to take out the most embarrassing provisions, but they can't alter their image as an anti-war party in favor of wasteful spending," one Republican aide said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., dismissed Bush's veto threat and defended some of the spending inserted by Congress as benefits for the troops.
"He's going to veto meeting the health care needs, especially mental health needs, of our veterans who are returning from the war," she said.
Among those defending the nonmilitary spending was The New York Times, which editorialized Monday in favor of the money inserted for spinach farmers.
"Mr. Bush invariably chooses to mock $25 million allotted for spinach growers in California," the newspaper wrote. "But that money is intended to mitigate growers' losses from their voluntary recall of spinach during a bacterial contamination last September, which is the type of emergency that supplemental spending bills are supposed to address."
churt@dcexaminer.com
