Some staffers to Senate leadership have their priorities completely backwards. That's the only conclusion we can draw from a sick suggestion that's been working it's way around the Capitol over the past few days.

The Senate, of course, piled all manner of non-emergency, non-essential spending onto the emergency spending bill meant to fund the troops and disaster relief and thus came in well above the number laid out in the President's veto threat--$109 billion compared to the President's $92.2 billion. The responsible way for the Senate to deal with this would be to just strip out the non-emergency spending and present to the President a clean bill that he can sign without any qualms.

But one senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is too clever for such a simple move. According to CQ Today, Frist's top budget aide, William Hoagland has proposed an across-the-board cut in the supplemental spending to bring the bill's total cost into line with the President's initial request and veto threat. Just cut everything by the same amount, it seems, and the bill will slide right under the President's cap. It's an easy way out and, as Hoagland pitches it, an easy way for Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert to reach common ground. The entire difference between the Senate's bill and the President's request could be traversed by a 13-or-so percent across-the-board cut.

But easy and simple aren't necessarily good. Relative to the President's request for emergency spending, an across-the-board cut would reduce funding for defense in the supplemental--money for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to meet needs that are the very purpose of this legislation--by $9.6 billion. An across-the-board cut would also chop $2.6 billion from funding to respond to the actual emergency of Hurricane Katrina. This ploy just highlights the terrible trade-offs that pork-barrel spending leads lawmakers to make.

So where's the money going if not to our troops and to hurricane victims? There's billions in farm subsidies when the industry is roaring along. The bill has a bit over $1 billion for the fisheries and seafood industries--classic corporate pork. There's highway spending, social program spending, and all other manner of non-emergency spending. None of this stacks up to the needs of U.S. troops abroad and our fellow citizens hit so hard by Hurricane Katrina.

This disgusting proposal highlights the broken priorities that have driven this supplemental bill and how adrift the Senate has become. The Senate should pull down this trial balloon, and if it doesn't, House leadership should puncture it without delay.

Update: So what does $9.6 billion buy you on the battlefield? We asked a military analyst, and he gave us a couple benchmarks to illustrate how big a hit this could be:

1. Rapid Fielding Initiative kits: Let's say we rub out military purchases of 255,000 RFI kits, which is all that the military plans to purchase this year. These kits contain everything from t-shirts and underwear to night vision goggles and advance combat helmets to replace the Kevlars. For the soldiers going into combat, items such as ammo packs and grenadier accessories are included. Here's a full list of what's in the kit this year:

   Advanced Combat Helmet (1/Soldier), Army Combat Boot (HW) (1pr/Soldier), Army Combat Boot (TW) (1pr/Soldier), Ballistic Spectacles (1/Soldier), Black Fleece Bib & Jacket (1set/Soldier), Cold Weather Cap (1/Soldier), Combat Belt (1/Soldier), COTS Socks (4pr/Soldier), Glove System (1set/Soldier), Goggles (1/Soldier), Hydration System (1/Soldier), Improved First Aid Kit (1/Soldier), Infrared (IR) Markers (1set/Soldier), Knee and Elbow Pads (1set/Soldier), Modular Sleeping System (1/Soldier), Moisture Wicking Sports Bra (4/F-Soldier), Moisture Wicking T-Shirt (4/Soldier), Silk Weight Underwear (2sets/Soldier)

   And soldiers going into Iraq or Afghanistan also get specialized equipment, such as weapons and weapons accessories, binoculars, goggles, perhaps a "Tactical Assault Ladder," and the like. Adding all that in, the total cut would be $383 million.
    


2. Stryker Vehicles: Canceling the military's entire order of these for the year (240 vehicles) would cut $878 million in spending. According to the Washington Post, "[C]ommanders, soldiers and mechanics who use the Stryker fleet daily in one of Iraq's most dangerous areas unanimously praised the vehicle." These are one of the backbone pieces of equipment in Iraq.

These are major, major cuts, and yet we're still nowhere near the $9.6 billion that an across-the-board cut in the supplemental would strip away from military operations to fund corporate pork and worse. What else would we have to cut to reach $9.6 billion? Here's a possible list, on top of the cuts above: one Navy Destroyer, one Navy Littoral Combat Ship, one Navy T-AKE supply ship, 10 V-22 aircraft, 20 F/A-22 aircraft, and 10 C-17 aircraft.

Bottom line: this is an awful lot of money to so blithely divert to non-emergency spending programs that can't even hold their own in the regular budget process.

So here's an idea: why don't those who favor an across-the-board just tell us exactly what spending in Iraq and Afghanistan they believe is less worthy than the pork piled onto the supplemental bill by the Senate?