Can someone help me understand,

[SaveOurDemocracy]

or point me to a thread where this has already been discussed ... Why were all these 'pork' unrelated issues added on to a military spending bill? I know the Rethugh hypocrites really have no room to criticize, not that they have the grace to let that stop them, but I thought Dems promised to put an end to this crap?

[Sammy Pepys]

1. Because defense spending is critical...

...and the bill will have to pass one way or the other. So you start tacking stuff on that you want passed, but might not get through on it's own.

Either that, or you use it as bait to rail against the spending bill. Then when people protest you cvan say "Look at this, they're holding up money for thr troops!"

Don't know if that's precisely the case here, but it's probably a good ballpark guess.

[Tempest]

2. Both of your reasons are valid

And have been used a lot.

The thing is, pork spending is still way down since the Democrats took control of Congress. I saw a figure that said it was down by something like 50% or more.

[Sammy Pepys]

3. We haven't completed an appropriations cycle...

...since the Dems retook Congress, so the final numbers haven't come back yet, but the potential for them being lower is good.

[Tempest]

4. Democrats placed a one year moratorium on pork spending

We'll see if they hold themselves to it.

[Sammy Pepys]

5. Well, I think they violated it today...n/t

...

[Tempest]

6. If you're referring to the funding for spinach growers

I wouldn't consider that pork spending considering the economic hit they recently took.

Pork spending refers to things like museums and bridges to nowhere.

[Sammy Pepys]

7. I think by virtue of the bill it was included in...

...it could rightly be considered pork, along with the famous provision for peanut storage and all of the other subsidies in there. If they were included in Ag or Commerce bills, I could be persuaded that they were not pork...but not in a defense supplemental.

If the Reps had thrown this stuff in, we'd probably be screaming that these earmarks are unabashed examples of pork

[SaveOurDemocracy]

8. That's my feeling too.

I'm not saying these add-on's aren't worthy issues ... but why muddy up such an important bill and hand the opponents the ammo to distract and mislead the public? It should have been kept clean ... this issue is important enough on it's own. IMO

[Sammy Pepys]

12. BEcause they were in there to get some Dems on the fence to support the bill...

..it's ugly, but this is how sausage is made. Members fight hard for projects like these, so throwing in projects like that certainly counts for something.

But yeah, these are classic examples of pork spending.

[Tempest]

10. I agree and disagree

I agree they don't belong in the defense bill, but it is also evident the Repugs would hold up the necessary funding if they were in an ag bill. Also, an ag bill wouldn't be prepared for some time and the spinach farmers need funding now or they might not be around to collect it later.

[Sammy Pepys]

13. Hmmm...not sure about that.

The peanut thing and fisheries subsidies are tailor-made for bills like Ag or Commerce. Similar projects have been funded for years in those bills.

As far as disbursement of funds, we are still in FY07...the current spending cycle is for FY08 (except for the supp obviously). So you're right that the money probably wouldn't come down the pike for a while...but that's the case for everyone and everything right now. What makes peanut storage and milk subsidies so important that they have to get tacked into a defense supplemental?

[blogslut]

9. Were they pork

Or is that what the supplements were being called by detractors?

From what I heard, these were funds for Katrina victims and farmers

[AngryOldDem]

11. According to Steny Hoyer...

These "pork" issues are those that should have been getting adequate funding all along. One thing he mentioned was health care for kids. I'll take that explanation at face value.