THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, September 5, 1994 TAG: 9409020006
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A8 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 34 lines
Who approves of ``pork barrel'' politics? How would members of Congress answer? What would their constituents say? Can the congressional appetite for this other ``white meat'' be described as gluttonous?
Your editorial ``Crime bill mugged'' (Aug. 15) noted that Republicans had pointed to ``a $10 million bit of pork buried in the fine print of the crime bill.'' On Aug. 10, Sens. George Mitchell and Robert Dole appeared together on ``Meet the Press.'' When asked why he could not support Mitchell's crime bill, Dole said he had concerns about ``pork'' items (not specified) in the bill. Mitchell's rebuttal was to read a list of ``pork'' items contained in the Republican-sponsored version of the bill.
Could this indicate partisan acceptance of ``pork barrel'' items in party-sponsored bills? There is no justification to include pork items in any bill! It seems that the only time either party sheds crocodile tears over pork is when it is politically advantageous to do so. How much connivance is there at all other times?
Why not give the president the authority to use line-item vetoes? Several state governors have this authority. If used to eliminate ``pork barrel'' items/ riders, think of the money that could be saved!
CHARLES F. SIMPSON
Norfolk, Aug. 24, 1994 by CNB