Business as Usual in Washington...Unfortunately!
Over the past week, the debate in Washington has centered on the Supplemental Budget Bill being passed by both the House and the Senate. The primary focus of this Bill is the $103 billion needed to fund the ongoing war in Iraq and the needs of the military. However, in each version of this Bill there is a requirement to bring the troops home from Iraq by a specific deadline.
Aside from the escalating costs of fighting this unpopular war, the war of words in Washington has been between the Democrats (who want to respond to public sentiment and end the war) and President Bush and most Republicans (who believe that things are beginning to go well in Iraq and a deadline for removing the troops will send the wrong signal). President Bush has vowed to veto the Bill if it includes the troop withdrawal language. Defense Secretary Gates believes that the military will be seriously impacted if the supplemental funds are not approved by mid-April. And while American soldiers die every day in Iraq, the politicians posture and debate.
What has been lost in this patriotic public posturing are the actual elements of the Supplemental Appropriations Bill. In addition to the $103 billion for the military and the requirement to bring the troops home, there are billions of dollars of earmarks ($20 billion in the House Bill, $18.5 billion in the Senate version). Earmarks are targeted funds for specific projects of interest to individual senators and house members. While earmarks can serve important and valuable purposes (research, community development, etc.), this “pork” is often a way that politicians curry favor with their home state or district and influence votes and future elections. They are typically add-ons to bills and rarely receive scrutiny.
Obviously, politicians think we forget their campaign rhetoric about ethics reform and cleaning up the system. It appears that business as usual has returned to the nation’s capital. All of this at the same time that funding for low income families, federal aid for college access and student loans are being threatened. I am sure that eliminating the scourge of Mormon crickets in Nevada (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s addition to the Senate Bill) will make the world a better place. But access to higher education for more students, affordability of quality education, and fundamental social services for the poor of this country might be somewhat more important. And it would be nice if one day we can look to Washington for a lesson in ethics. Sadly, it just won’t be any day soon.
(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)