Sen. Clinton doesn't get her terror funding pork bill through
Even though Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has raised millions of dollars to aid her Democratic colleagues and is a de facto party leader in Congress, the possible presidential candidate in 2008 failed to persuade her colleagues this week to fork over homeland security money for her state.
[Make no mistake: NY has already gotten plenty of money from the Bush Administration for terror attacks since 9/11, but Hilary has made getting more her cause célèbre, because she loves money and lots of it!--Jen]
Clinton made an impassioned plea in a closed Democratic Caucus meeting Tuesday for her amendment to direct that the Homeland Security Department follow a “threat-based” approach when allocating homeland-security money. Such an approach would send more aid to cities such as New York and Washington, where the terrorist threat is deemed greatest.
But Clinton was beaten back by senators fearful that their states would lose out under a system that guaranteed less money for each state, with more money based on such factors as population or level of threat. Since small states have outsized representation in the Senate, with two senators representing each state, Clinton never had much of a chance.
[Author Geoff Earle might want to get out his American Government textbook again and study both the Electoral College and Congressional representation, both of which were designed by the Founding Fathers to ensure that all American states have more or less equal representation, regardless of how "big" or "important" they judged themselves to be.
Hillary hates things like the Electoral College that give smaller, less populous states an equal voice and would love to do any with them if she were Queen!
Hitlery's Dimocrat colleagues in the Senate didn't go for this because they have to answer to their voters--some of them quite soon, like Daschle who's up for re-election and not looking all that good--and tell them why they didn't get more federal monies for their state in the event there's a terror attack there.--J.T.]
Even typical Clinton allies, such as Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), opposed Clinton on her amendment. (Plains states had a particularly good week, when the Senate tacked $3 billion in drought relief onto the homeland security bill.)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee and a Clinton confidante, opposed her amendment as well. All three senior Democrats come from small states that fare disproportionately well under the status quo.
Among top Democratic leaders, only Minority Whip Harry Reid (D-Nev.), whose state includes populous Las Vegas — a city deemed to suffer a relatively high threat of terrorist attack — supported Clinton’s amendment.
“There aren’t many places like Nevada that have a great big city,” Reid told The Hill, explaining why Clinton’s amendment was defeated. “You have a lot of places like Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota.”
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) tried to line up support for Clinton’s amendment among Republicans, many of whom come from low-population states in the West. But Ensign had even less luck than Clinton. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) all opposed the amendment, as did most Republicans.
Late Tuesday evening, the amendment was tabled, or killed, on a procedural vote, 54-39.
[Of course, sKerry and Edwards were to busy (campaigning) to show up and vote, but then they always are. Nor will they resign their seats in case they "win" the election." What a great couple of guys.]
After Tuesday’s Democratic Caucus meeting before the vote, Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) said he was undecided — although he gave indications that he would end up opposing Clinton (his eventual position). Dayton said he would have to be like a Texas politician and say, “Half my friends are for it, and half my friends are against it, and I’ll stick with my friends.”
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who often works closely with the Bush administration, this week found himself opposing the position espoused in the president’s budget: that a more threat-based approach should be followed. There were no indications Tuesday that the White House was actively whipping for Clinton’s proposal.
Nelson spoke at Tuesday’s caucus in opposition to Clinton and received a pat on the back afterward from Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), another powerful Democrat from a low-population state.
“Every state, small or otherwise, has high-value targets that need to be protected,” Nelson told The Hill. “We have refining areas. We have ethanol plants. We’ve got a number of pharmaceutical companies. We have our food-security risk of cattle and livestock.”
“It’s all on how you figure it,” Nelson continued. “It’s where you live.”
Clinton said that she “understands very well” the politics of the situation but that it was important to put federal money “where the threat is.”
“It was a tough vote for people,” said Nelson spokesman David DiMartino. “People don’t want to be perceived as parochial. How are you going to explain later on if a terrorist attack hits in the heartland of America?”
DeMartino said that if Clinton’s amendment passed, Nebraska’s homeland-security funding would have dropped from $19 million to $8 million. “It’s going to be hard to go home and say, ‘We gave up all our money and sent it to New York.’”
[I know I'd be pretty upset if there's an attack here in Dallas or even in Texas!--J.T.]
In an impassioned floor speech, Clinton cited the conclusions of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, which wrote that homeland-security funding “should not remain a program for federal revenue sharing.” The committee concluded, “Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.”
[This means YOU, too, Sen. Clinton!]
One of the few senators to vote against his state’s immediate self-interest on the amendment was Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who is legendary for steering millions in federal aid to his state. According to Byrd spokesman Tom Gavin, Byrd thinks more funding should go to areas with the highest risk of attack. “He’s certainly worked to fund his state’s interest throughout the rest of the bill, too,” Gavin allowed.
Clinton also offered an amendment to increase, by $625 million, the amount of funding directed to high-threat urban areas. That amendment also was defeated on a procedural vote, as was an amendment by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to increase funding for rail security.
Hmmm.
The Hill doesn't say whether Chucky Schumer backed his fellow NY Dim Senator...I'll have to check it out!*
(*Did check it out. Turns out Chucky was a co-sponsor. But all it is not well between those 2 in the paradise of NY!)
I'm thinking that Hillary's political star has risen and fallen already and her inability to ram this bill through pretty much proves it.
Clearly for her fellow Dimocrat Senators, to forego their own state's funding and tender it over to Her Heinous was a "bridge too far," even for Clinton's wife and purported President in 2008.
She got 5 minutes at her own convention, introducing her hubby.
The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy painted her town Bush Red at their convention.
And now that the "meek" junior senator finally sponsors an amendment, it gets beaten like a bongo, even though she's had 3 years to muster support for it and to bug President Bush for the funding...loudly, in public and in front of the mikes.
Turns out Bush isn't to blame, but her fellow Dims.
Home
