Supplemental spending

A friend of mine requested that I comment on the article on supplemental spending found here on CNN.

Supplemental spending is a tricky subject. An easy reaction would be that all extra-budget expenditures are unnecessary and serve as examples of today's Congress and their appetite for pork. I have a difficult time, however, complaining about an extra $60 million to help Darfur, for example.

Unfortunately, it seems to be the case more often than not that certain senators want to spend $200 million of our money to help bail out a certain defense contractor – which, by the way, just so happens to be from their home state – whose insurance company won't cover losses from Hurricane Katrina, well, now that gets my dander up a bit. Did I mention that Northrop Grumman just so happens also to be a significant contributor to Trent Lott's campaign?

Okay, so that may be a bit of a tangent, but pork like that can only serve to show the extent to which money dominates politics today. We do have a chance to change that, but it will only happen if people get angry (which they are) and pay attention (which, well, they aren't).