Archived Story

Bailout filled with pork: Lawmakers stuffed last-minute plan with pet projects - Sunday, October 12, 2008

There was no time to lose. The nation was - is still - facing an economic crisis of momentous proportions. Our leaders had to act swiftly to avert the impending financial disaster.

And yet, somehow, they still managed to find time enough to stuff the bailout bill with pork.

Apparently the 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which mustered enough bipartisan support to become law Oct. 3, could not be confined to merely expanding federal regulatory authority. No, in order to win over the nation's congressional delegates, it had to be larded up with $100 billion worth of pet projects, bringing the bill's total cost to taxpayers up to an astounding $800 billion.

Let's take a closer look at what we're getting for our money, courtesy of the nonpartisan national watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense:

An excise tax exemption for children's wooden arrows. That'll be a mere $2 million over 10 years.

A write-off for certain racetrack facilities. That will cost about $100 million over 10 years.

A trust fund meant to promote the competitiveness of American wool. For $148 million over 10 years.

Special deduction rules for certain film and TV productions. $81 million over 10 years.

An extension on a tax rebate for imports of rum from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. That's $192 million.

Those are some of the most head-scratching examples, but there are plenty more to choose from. Some of them even seem like reasonable measures that would do a lot of good. Montana Sen. Max Baucus, who voted in favor of the final bill, has explained repeatedly that they were not “earmarks” per se, but rather a set of special tax provisions, and that many of them would benefit Montana.

However, we fail to see why they had to be lumped together with this crucial legislation. They should have been addressed in their own time, when they could be prioritized and scrutinized without threatening to hold back a bill meant to help stabilize the nation's crumbling financial markets.

Sen. Jon Tester and Rep. Denny Rehberg voted against the bailout bill, and we sorely wish more congressional delegates had joined them.

Those who voted for the bill only after their pet projects were added probably did so thinking it would help win voters come time for re-election - but this is one time when voters, already feeling the pinch in their budgets, may not appreciate their unshakable commitment to bringing home the bacon.
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)
Current Word Count:
   

Vrede wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:29 AM:

" Wait a second. Despite the Missoulian's claim, the bill all along was a Wall Street fat cat bailout and was never touted by anyone as aimed at "merely expanding federal regulatory authority." Further, Tester and Rehberg opposed its central premise, not just the earmarks added to it.

What's up with this complete and mischaracterization of the situation?

If you take pork and stuff it with pork, doesn't it stink exactly the same? "

Vrede wrote on Oct 12, 2008 2:47 PM:

" Moderator,

Would you please edit the 2nd paragraph of my post to read:

What's up with this complete mischaracterization of the situation?

Thanks. "

|

Subscribe to the Missoulian today — get 2 weeks free!