Republicans: To Heck with Port Security!

[Doug]

...the House of Representatives narrowly defeated an amendment proposed by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) that would have provided $1.25 billion in desperately needed funding for port security and disaster preparedness. The Sabo amendment included:

– $300 million to enable U.S. customs agents to inspect high-risk containers at all 140 overseas ports that ship directly to the United States. Current funding only allows U.S. customs agents to operate at 43 of these ports.

– $400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. Currently, less than half of U.S. ports have radiation monitors.

– $300 million to provide backup emergency communications equipment for the Gulf Coast.

Meanwhile, the Bush budget – which most of the members who voted against this bill will likely support – contains an increase of $1.7 billion for missile defense, a program that doesn’t even work.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/por ... y-funding/

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Security has always been a long way behind "bidness" - the only reason star wars is still being funded is because it's the pork that keeps several senators and reps in office (local jobs, you know).

[Dardedar]

DAR
Oh, and look at the cost of the wars now:

***
US War Spending to Rise 44% to $9.8 Billion a Month

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031706B.shtml

US military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average 44 percent
more in the current fiscal year than in fiscal 2005, the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service said. Spending will rise to $9.8 billion a
month from the $6.8 billion a month the Pentagon said it spent last
year.
***

D.
----------------------
"I've finally run out of superlatives to describe the hypocrisy, ethical and moral corruption, incompetence and outright inhumanity of the Bush White House. I'm just spent. Geez, what did we do to deserve havng these uncaring assholes running the government?" -- Ed Fitzgerald,
.
.