Emergency fish funding? We have nothing against fish here at Federal Computer Week. After all, our headquarters is located adjacent to the world-famous Fairview Park Salmon Run, the only salmon run in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
That said, it’s hard to figure out why various members of Congress find it necessary to use Defense Department appropriations bills as piggybanks for their pet fish projects. The 2007 emergency war supplemental appropriations bill approved by the House Appropriations Committee earlier this month continues the fish trend. It has a $60.4 million earmark for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide relief for people and businesses on the California and Oregon coasts that were affected by the salmon fishery “disaster” in the Klamath River.
I don’t know what constitutes a salmon fishery disaster, but I think this particular bit of funding could have been handled outside of a bill intended to provide funding for troops operating in areas far more disastrous than the California and Oregon coasts. Maybe we should have an Omnibus Fish Disaster Bill, which could include earmarks for DOD.
The Democrats said they have sworn off earmarks, but the fishy odor emanating from this sure smells like pork to me.
Christmas in March That’s the only take I have after a careful reading of the House Appropriations Committee’s version of a bill the committee proudly named the Supporting Our Troops and Veterans’ Health Care Act. With that flag-waving moniker, I suppose the committee hopes to disguise such dubious line items as a cool half a billion dollars — real money, even in Congress — for wildfire suppression management.
The hacks in the committee split the wildfire funding between two agencies — $400 million would go to the Forest Service and another $100 million to the Interior Department — making at least two groups happy. But I’d love to get an explanation from someone on the Hill about how $500 million in wildfire suppression supports the troops. Does anyone out there in Intercepts land have a clue?
The bill also includes $118.3 million for FBI operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and enhanced counterterrorism activities. I have no idea what the FBI is doing in either war zone and even less of an idea of what constitutes enhanced counterterrorism activities.
But if both are so necessary, why not use the normal budget process?
The bottom line on all these nonemergency, non-war-related line items is a sad one. After subtracting all the earmarks, DOD ends up with $95.6 billion out of a $124 billion supplemental war-funding bill. In other words, the committee’s members support the troops with all the patriotic fervor they can muster, minus a 20 percent discount for other stuff.
Digg
De.licio.us
Slashdot
Technorati
