Against the Porkbusters

ON May 1, President Bush vetoed the emergency defense-funding bill that the Democratic Congress had passed. It was the second veto of his presidency. He listed three reasons for the veto. The bill “would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq.” It “would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat.” And it “is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror.”

By making that last point, Bush was echoing the concerns of congressional Republicans. He was also demonstrating that the campaign against pork-barrel spending has risen near the top of conservative causes, with potentially dangerous consequences.

About the Author

Ramesh Ponnuru

Ramesh Ponnuru is the editor of National Review, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Featured Tags

ON May 1, President Bush vetoed the emergency defense-funding bill that the Democratic Congress had passed. It was the second veto of his presidency. He listed three reasons for the veto. The bill “would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq.” It “would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat.” And it “is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror.”

By making that last point, Bush was echoing the concerns of congressional Republicans. He was also demonstrating that the campaign against pork-barrel spending has risen near the top of conservative causes, with potentially dangerous consequences.