Congress Frittering Our Dollars Away

A billionaire Republican who wants a Woodstock concert museum contributed nearly $30,000 to Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, just a few days after the senators requested a $1 million "earmark" for the museum.

A Senate committee approved the request, but Republicans successfully halted the funding, which was included in a -- get this -- health and education bill.

Aside from the obvious quid pro quo issue, what immediately occurred to me was: If this billionaire thinks a Woodstock museum is critically important, why doesn't he pay for it himself? If he doesn't want to foot the whole bill, why doesn't he tap friends and business associates for contributions?

Instead he'd rather pay bribes to senators who are ostensibly in the opposite political party, and force those of us whose incomes are a relative drop in the bucket to pay for his pet project?

And why do senators spend our money so easily? Because they can, of course, and because it cements their power.

The automatic assumption that projects such as the Woodstock Museum should be funded by taxpayers is infuriating. Too many people, senators included, forget that that money didn't appear out of thin air -- it came out of my pocket and yours.