Pork for foreign aid is risky business

DEAR EDITOR:

I may have been distracted these last couple of months with the midterms. It wasn’t until last night did I learn that our Congress, when passing legislation for relief for Hurricane Ian victims, inserted further monetary and military support for Ukraine. Think about the effect of coupling disaster relief for our fellow citizens with further monetary support for a foreign government. On the surface, what elected official would vote no against the support of our fellow citizens? How weak is the argument to further support Ukraine monetarily? By definition, this is a pork-barrel spending piece of legislation.

Envision yourself as a politician who wants to send more money to Ukraine because it helps special interests that have supported you (military-industrial complex). In these times it is difficult to have support of your colleagues and your electorate with this idea. Then, along comes a natural disaster, Hurricane Ian. You know there will be an outpouring of support by colleagues and the American people for those affected by the hurricane. Nobody in his right mind would vote “no” for hurricane relief. You convince writers of the hurricane relief legislation to insert further money for the Ukraine. The proposal, $18 billion to Ian and $12 billion to Ukraine.

So, 40 percent of the money spent on the hurricane relief bill is not going to hurricane relief. We now find that $70 billion to Ukraine is currently unaccounted for! Someone must explain why pork-barrel mentality is the path we need to continue down. Use common sense.

DAN WEARSCH

Vienna