From the Tulsa World
By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau
10/26/2005
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn on Tuesday called
for killing funding for special projects approved
earlier in a massive transportation bill as he rolled
out a package to help pay for hurricane relief
efforts.
That part of the package pushed by Coburn, R-Okla.,
and several other senators, however, drew no support
from other Oklahomans, neither in Congress nor back in
the state.
Several expressed outright opposition.
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., whose major role in putting
together the transportation bill helped boost the
state's share of the money, referred to the millions
earmarked for Interstate 44 in Tulsa as one of those
special projects appropriately prioritized.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Coburn has attempted
to take the lead in finding spending offsets to pay
for storm relief.
"Congress is learning what the American people already
know," he said. "Charity requires sacrifice."
Coburn was joined in unveiling the new package by
Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, John Ensign
of Nevada, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Sam Brownback
of Kansas and John Sununu of New Hampshire. GOP Sen.
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
also is a member of the group.
With offsets totaling about $125 billion, their
package also calls for a 5 percent, across-the-board
spending cut for nonsecurity programs, a freeze on pay
raises for members of Congress and federal employees,
and a delay in the new Medicare prescription drug
program for all but low-income seniors.
"Among the American people there is a growing rumble
about our unsustainable fiscal course," Coburn said.
"I believe this package will help quiet that rumble
and build a bridge to fiscal sanity and
responsibility."
While other Oklahomans sympathized with his effort to
cut federal spending, they declined to go along with
his call for killing transportation funds.
"We desperately need it in the state of Oklahoma and
around the nation," Inhofe said.
"Besides that, what they are suggesting won't work."
Even if Coburn succeeds in killing all special project
money already signed into law by President Bush, he
said, most of the money would remain in each state
because it is part of the formula used to dole out
road funds.
Inhofe said all Coburn would succeed in doing is
taking away Oklahoma's authority to decide where the
money would go.
Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla., stood by the project
money he helped get into the bill.
"When it comes to improving the condition of
Oklahoma's roads and bridges," Sullivan said, "the
safety of travelers should not be compromised."
Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., said the funding allocated
for Oklahoma's roads and bridges will be vital to
economic development, job growth and safety.
Gary Ridley, director of the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation, also defended the state's special
projects included in the bill.
Ridley said their funding should remain.
Both Gov. Brad Henry and Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla.,
who hopes to challenge Henry next year in the general
election, declined to pick a side in the debate.
Coburn's efforts to kill special project money
triggered an unusual legislative brawl on the Senate
floor last week when he tried to kill funding
earmarked for Alaska projects.
Senators overwhelmingly rejected his efforts.
When the transportation bill passed the Senate, Coburn
joined Inhofe in voting for it as he had promised to
do during his 2004 campaign.
Coburn initially said on Tuesday that he did not know
whether he was sorry he had promised to vote for the
transportation bill, which traditionally is full of
so-called pork barrel projects.
"I didn't know that it was going to be that bad," he
insisted, even though the bill's final passage had
been delayed for years and had been the focus of
numerous news stories and even veto threats from the
Bush administration.
When pressed, Coburn eventually said he was not sorry
he made the campaign pledge.
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
2 comments:
I will say this: though I would be losing out on a raise, you have to give him credit for being conscious of the fact that the money has to come from somewhere...
Damn straight. This is why we hire those guys: to make the hard choices. So many others pretend they have a blank check chiefly to avoid pissing anyone off.
And for the record, I hate the idea of you not getting a raise too. Then again, if either of us ever want to make real money, we've GOT to get away from working for the government.
Post a Comment