The United States Senate yesterday was confronted with a stark choice: health care for children, or pet projects for lawmakers' home states.The full vote record is here.
The final tally?
Pet Projects 68, Kids 26.
In truth, the children never had a chance. "I predicted 24," the measure's sponsor, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said cheerfully after his defeat.
It was, Coburn's many opponents grumbled, a political stunt. But, as stunts go, this one was particularly revealing. The Oklahoma physician, a foe of the unhealthy cut of congressional pork known as "earmarks," proposed an amendment to a major health spending bill that said no lawmakers' pet projects would be funded until "all children in the U.S. under the age of 18 years are insured by a private or public health insurance plan."
Among the earmarks this jeopardized:
• $130,000 for the National First Ladies' Library in Ohio.
• $500,000 for a "Virtual Herbarium" in New York.
• $400,000 for the Figge Art Museum in Davenport, Iowa.
• $100,000 to celebrate Lake Champlain's quadricentennial.
• $500,000 for "field experiences" on the Chesapeake Bay.
• $50,000 for an ice center in Utah.
Take a minute to think about this. If Coburn was happy about the defeat, and knew it would be defeated, why did he do it? To get people on the record. Many Senators (from both sides) talk a good game about being 'for the children' and being against earmarks, but when it comes down to an actual vote between the two, actions speak louder than words.
The Senate has spoken.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment