Pork vs. The Drug War

Does the federal government spend more on pork or the drug war? Interestingly, the two are almost exactly equivalent. According to the anti-pork Citizens Against Government Waste, $13.2 billion in fiscal 2007 qualifies as pork. Federal spending on the Drug War in 2007 is $13.1 billion (these items each represent less than 0.5% of the federal budget). Yet conservatives complain about pork bloating the budget, but they adamantly support the Drug War. The response would be short and sweet: pork is bad, the Drug War is good. But there seems to be something deeper going on: complain about spending when you don't like a policy, ignore spending when you like the policy.

Perhaps I am making too much out of this whole anti-porkbusting thing, as I have previously called it a distraction from other fiscal issues, notably the Iraq War and Defense spending generally. But the examples keep coming: Instapundit recently described an earmarking incident as part of "a culture of corruption." I think he is right, though not in the way he thinks: the incident involved a Defense contractor (in fact, all 2007 pork was in Defense and Homeland Security bills). Sometimes the Pentagon examples are even more egregious.

I am happy to see that some pro-war conservatives have made basically the same point I am making (not surprisingly, from a fellow Dakotan). And quite conveniently, this glimmer of hope among conservatives only confirms my basic complaint: this blogger compared pork to entitlement spending, while completely ignoring war spending! And so, my confirmation bias is further entrenched and the crusade continues.