Letter: Let’s determine extent of ‘pork’ in military

Friday, Nov. 16, 2007 | 7:23 a.m.

President Bush, stubbornly or strongly, depending on one's view, threatens to veto a budget that contains what he considers "pork." I think we all look at those line items through different lenses.

Although we, the residents of Nevada, are delighted there is money in the budget for specific educational programs that benefit Nevada, others across the nation might consider this a waste of money, or pork. And their requests seem needless to us, I guess.

There is an old saying, "It takes one to know one." How does that apply to the budget? Well, the president's budget for the war in Iraq contains more pork than a sausage factory.

The White House has been asking Congress for more and more money to be spent on the war and Congress has responded. We all know by now that too much of that money has gone to corporations that are making windfall profits on operations that do little or nothing to benefit our troops.

For instance, the Associated Press reports, "Last week Congress approved a $471 billion budget for the military that pays mostly for nonwar-related projects." A recent report predicts the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to be $1.6 trillion by the end of next year. Wouldn't it be enlightening to have a budget breakdown like the line items of the national budget to see the extent of this pork?

As a concerned citizen, and I hope I represent many Americans who feel the same as I do, I wonder when we will be treated as intelligent, responsible people. I am tired of the feeble responses we are getting when the administration is accused of errors and misrepresentation. When will it respond by clarifying the issues rather than attacking the critics? We all deserve better than we are getting.

Ken Anderson, Las Vegas