The U.S. Senate voted 86-13 against three anti-pork spending amendments offered by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK. The Coburn amendments would have repealed $500,000 previously authorized for a sculpture park in Seattle, Washington, $200,000 to build an animal shelter in Westerly, RI, and $200,000 to build a parking lot in Omaha, Nebraska, and re-directed the funds to help pay instead for Hurricane Katrina recovery.I may not be a politician, and some would say I don't understand the complexities of compromise, and "getting things done" in Washington, but this seems to me like politics all the way. Allard said one thing, and it seems here, voted the other way. This is the kind of thing that has the voters frustrated!
It appears the majority of senators think it is more important to shelter dogs and cats in Rhode Island than people in Louisiana and Mississippi made homeless by Hurricane Katrina.
Two updates from instapundit, who has more info.
UPDATE: Via email from Coburn's office, a correction: Those were different amendments, to the same effect. The "Bridge to Nowhere" amendment is coming up shortly. I imagine it will fail too -- though I'd love to be wrong -- but I hope that this Senate action will get a lot of attention.
Meanwhile, Patty Murray is threatening people over the Coburn cuts.
I predict a revival of interest in term limits and a balanced budget amendment. But at least we've got their attention.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Tapscott has updated with a list of how Senators voted, and observes about Patty Murray's threats: "Getting that defensive this quick is probably an indication of just how scared the Big Spenders in both political parties are that the Coburnites will succeed."
Senator Allard, you wrote to me with a commitment to cut spending! If you, or someone on your staff is reading this, would you care to explain your vote? I would be glad to publish it here.