Skip to main content

Allard (R-CO) & Salazar (D-CO) voted to Kill the Coburn Amendments

Just a couple days after receiving a convincing letter of commitment to cutting pork from Senator Allard, both Colorado Senators Allard and Salazar voted to kill the Coburn Amendments, that would have killed $900.000 in pork spending in RI, Washington, and Nebraska. Mark Tapscott has more.
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 The Coburn amendments would have repealed $500,000 previously authorized for a sculpture park in Seattle, Washington, $200,000 to build an animal shelter in Westerly, RI, and $200,000 to build a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.

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.
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!

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.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hispanic Trending: Leave your name at the border

Most people miss the fact that Hispanics do not consist of a single ethnic group. Besides that, the heritage that each one of the many nationalities represented in our immigrant population is diverse in itself. As I read Manuel Muñoz's post on his assimilation experience, I can tell you mine was nothing like his. But I can relate to this paragraph. My niece's name is Katie Belle (Sierra). It's intriguing to watch "American" names begin to dominate among my nieces and nephews and second cousins, as well as with the children of my hometown friends. I am not surprised to meet 5-year-old Brandon or Kaitlyn. Hardly anyone questions the incongruity of matching these names with last names like Trujillo or Zepeda. The English-only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish. A name like Kaitlyn Zepeda doesn't completely obscure her ethnicity, but the half-step of her nam…

RealClearPolitics: The Democrats Dither on Trade

The backtracking on free trade in South America has been among the frustrating news for me coming out of the beltway. Considering how the economic downturns in Latin America affect us through the increase in illegal immigration, I would think more Americans would be fighting for this one as loudly as they fought for the failed Immigration legislation. Democratic presidential candidates like to talk about "turning a page" in America's relations with the rest of the world. But what does that mean, in practical terms, on bread-and-butter issues such as trade? Are today's Democrats a party of open markets and economic development, or of market restrictions and job protection?The answer is that leading Democrats seem to want both -- they favor economic development overseas but not at the cost of U.S. jobs. That sounds like a coherent position until you begin to look carefully at the political choices in Latin America, a part of the world where …

The Importance of English for Immigrants

With all the attention to the border security problem, and the challenges the nation is facing in regards to immigration, here are some thoughts on why learning English is of such importance to immigrants. More importantly, America would benefit greatly if we put a higher priority on getting immigrants to learn English. We are talking about improvements for the economy, reductions in crime, and much more.

Learning English allows an immigrant to:
1. Spread their wings beyond the urban Spanish-speaking enclaves. This, of course, leads to better integration, and a better understanding of what our country really looks like--nothing like "el barrio" in LA. But it also has implications as far as housing, jobs, and more. If an immigrant feels compelled to only live in certain areas to be close to other immigrants, this will place serious limitations on housing and jobs available. God knows housing prices are bad enough in LA and in Miami.

2. Improve on the job opportunities available.…