CCAGW Lauds the Removal of Million Dollar 'Hippie' Pork from Senate Spending Bill

On Friday, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) lauded Republican Senator Tom Coburn's successful removal of a wasteful $1 million "pork barrel" earmark which had been riding on the fiscal 2008 Labor-HHS-Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Senator Coburn's amendment eliminated $1 million that was earmarked for the Bethel Performing Arts Center Museum in New York, which includes a tribute to the 1969 Woodstock Festival. The money was instead re-allocated for the Maternal and Child Health block grant program.

The original, defeated earmark was sponsored by Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, both of New York. They attempted to table or kill the amendment, but that move was voted down by a 52-42 count. The amendment removing the wasteful spending was then passed via voice vote.

CCAGW says that the bill yet contains over 800 earmarks that will cost taxpayers more than $400 million, mostly having little to do with the missions and priorities at the various departments funded in this appropriations bill, such as $42 million in healthcare construction projects for Senators' alma maters.

CCAGW supported the Bethel Museum amendment along with three others drafted by Senator Coburn, including one to eliminate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Entertainment Education program, an ombudsman program, and CDC earmarked money for purchasing additional rotating pastel lights, zero-gravity chairs, and dry heat saunas for the agency's fitness center.

In spite of President Bush's calling on the Democratic majority in Congress to control its thirst for raising taxes and cutting spending, including pork barrel spending, the Republican Party has been the target of harsh criticism for not reigning in its own enormous spending, in spite of the fact that the Republicans have cut many taxes since the Bush Administration took the Oval Office.

Republicans have remained divided on the issue of whether to continue with profligate spending where it seems necessary in wartime, or to cut it back and cut the party's political losses.