Thursday, April 27, 2006

Hillary's Scare Tactics

So Hillary is screeching illogically again. What a shock.

Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y., said Gregg's cuts would "take money from troop pay, body armor and even joint improvised explosive device defeat fund. Now that is a false choice, and it is a wrong choice."

Gregg responded heatedly, arguing that the cuts eventually would come from other parts of the massive Pentagon budget rather than U.S. forces in Iraq.

"To come down here and allege that these funds are going to come out of the needs of the people on the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan is pure poppycock," he said.

In fact the amendment doesn't specify where the funding would come from, and contention that it would come directly out of soldier's pay is ludicrous. Should we even discuss the body armor issue? I don't like the vagueness that Gregg's amendment is showing, but it may be better to let the Pentagon decide where the funding actually gets cut.

Gregg also has an additional point:
"Yes, fighting the war in Iraq is critical to this war on terrorism," Gregg said on the Senate floor Tuesday. "Fighting the war in Afghanistan is critical to this war on terrorism. But I have to think equally important is making sure that our borders are secure."
This is showing some fiscal responsibility at least. Instead of just tacking on extra spending he's trying to stay within a budget. Imagine that, a politician that tries to stay within budget. From what I've been seeing the border security issue is pretty much orphaned at this time. The illegal immigrant issue has pushed it off the table because far too many politicians are worried about offending those people who are in our country illegally. That and the political stall-and-block tactics of the democrats.

This part of the article then had me banging my head on the desk.
In its veto statement, the White House said the bill contains too many items that are "unrelated to the war or emergency hurricane relief needs." It said a final House-Senate compromise on it "must remain focused on addressing urgent national priorities while maintaining fiscal discipline."

The move is likely to force senators to drop most of their $14 billion in add-owns for farm aid, highway repairs, aid to the Gulf Coast fishing industry and other projects. The additional money had won the ire of the White House and GOP congressional leaders and scorn from conservative allies whose support is crucial on Election Day.

Oh shock! Politicos packing on the pork. Say it isn't so. Imagine if they were more concerned with the $1.9 Billion for border security instead. Bloody leaches.

There is a certainty here to be predicted. If this pork-laden bill comes as is, and is vetoed, you know who will be blamed. Not the fat-back earmarkers for certain.

No comments: