From Deseret News archives:

A heavy-laden war bill

Published: Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:16 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
No matter how you look at it, Democrats in Congress blinked first in their showdown with the president over war funding. The bill that passed both houses this week includes no time line for the withdrawal of troops. Even key Democrats, such as Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., acknowledged that money to continue the war would have run out on Monday. Faced with the real possibility that they would be blamed for U.S. soldiers being shortchanged, they capitulated.

But while the president may have won the battle over war funding, the lesser-known story is about all the other little controversial measures that also found their way into the bill — measures that have nothing to do with the war.

For instance, a subsidy for Midwestern dairy farmers, granting small farms a combined $1.2 billion to guard against declines in the price of milk, passed along with the bill. This provision has been opposed by Western dairy farmers, who tend to have operations too large to qualify for the subsidy. It also violates new congressional rules that say all farm-program spending increases should be offset by cuts elsewhere.

The bill also allows large U.S. air carriers, such as American and Continental, to reduce their pension plans by nearly $2 billion over 10 years. The Associated Press reported that this subsidy initially was opposed by the White House, but those objections were dropped. That's what happens when something much larger, such as war funding, is at stake.

Story continues below
In addition, the bill includes $425 million to extend a federal program that helps rural counties in the Northwest that were harmed by lower than expected revenues from timber harvesting on federal land.

And, of course, the bill raises the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour.

Both political parties have learned that the quickest way to pass one controversial measure is to make it a tiny part of a much larger measure that comes with high political stakes.

The war-funding portion of the bill is a good thing. Congress has no business tying the hands of the nation's commander in chief during a time of war. The bill's requirements for Iraqis to meet certain benchmarks will not impede coalition forces.

But Americans should never expect an end to wasteful federal spending until lawmakers are called to account for the semi-hidden tricks they use to reward their pet causes.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

Gifts for gamers

There are some games I love not on your list. Arkham Asylum for one.

Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet

Our parents made my brothers help kill and clean our rabbits before we ate...

Why would you keep it open? I would understand if there was a lot of amazing...

The government will run our health care well? Read Reader's Digest, November...

BCS stable at top, Y. up to 14

TCU stomped on the MWC so they are naturally ready to crush Florida, Alabama...

Jazz win 6th in 7 games

could you understand Dave Locke any more than my mom does and she is not even...

Notre Dame fires Weis

Attending the ND/BYU game 3 years ago in south bend, a couple of things stuck...

I missed the game, actually i heard a little bit of Locke on the radio (man...

Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal

quotes were good: Article was dumb and unnecessary.

Understanding translation process

I believe the art depicting Joseph looking at the plates may possibly be...

Advertisements