Durbin and Obama voted with the vast majority (80 others) in the Senate. The Vote was aimed at allowing some funding from pork to go to more immediate needs, such as reconstruction after Hurricane Katrina. Senator Coburn suggested that, if we were allowed to raid each other's pork funds, we might also be able to kill the tit-for-tat escalation of spending in Congress. The thought was, if nobody's pork is sacred, then maybe, just maybe, somebody will occasionally vote "Nay" on some absurd spending plan. His initial target was the $220 million bridge connecting to the mainland the 50 people who live on Gravina Island, in Alaska. As it has been pointed out numerous times in op-ed and blog spaces, it would be cheaper just to buy everybody on Gravina a Lear jet. Coburn thought our nation's tax dollars could be better spent on recovery, trade, and national security.
The poor man was deluded into thinking that his fellow senators were more concerned for the national welfare than about their own reelections. Funny how that works.
Oh, but wait until the campaigns and the MSM start talking about "the President's runaway spending"....
Interestingly, one of the few in favor of this was Wisconsin's Senator Feingold. Yep, he's always concerned with where money is going. One would think, by the way he reacts to the mention of funding and government, that he was a Repulican of the first order. Feingold, with the help of Senator McCain, fooled around with the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution once, already, with the BCRA. He's just against private funding of campaigns, and against government spending on things that aren't going to Wisconsin (not a big recipient of pork, historically. Must be the superabundance of dairy cows, or something). With him on the "Yea" side of this thing, I might be having second thoughts, myself.
Hat tip:Winds of Change