Star-Tribune Editorial Board

It's easy to see why Wyoming's two U.S. senators objected to a new GI Bill they said was loaded with pork-barrel spending.

The measure passed by the Senate contains money for many things that have nothing to do with veterans' education, such as extending unemployment benefits, constructing levees around New Orleans, and providing heating subsidies to the poor.

Republican Sens. Mike Enzi and John Barrasso say they believe in a GI Bill, just not the one sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that the Senate passed, 75-22. Among the supporters were 25 Republican senators who broke with President Bush over the issue.

Not voting for Webb's bill was like walking in a political minefield, especially for GOP senators like Enzi and Barrasso, who are running this year to keep their seats. They will face criticism at home from veterans and political opponents. In fact, Barrasso has already been lambasted by one of his Democratic opponents, Nick Carter, for his "no" vote.

Coy Knobel, spokesman for Enzi, accused Democrats of playing political games with the bill. "Many of those who supported it did so because they were afraid of the political attacks that would come their way if they didn't," he said.

Carter, meanwhile, charged that it's the GOP that is playing games. He said Barrasso's support for an alternative GI Bill sponsored by Republican presidential candidate John McCain shouldn't have kept him from voting for Webb's bill, which was endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion.

It's likely there's a little political gamesmanship on both sides of the issue. Democrats want to show they support the troops, while some Republicans want McCain to get the credit. Lost in the rhetoric is what's best for veterans who want to use the legislation to obtain a college education.

Barrasso and Enzi have a legitimate point when they argue that McCain's bill contains some worthy provisions. It's also considerably less expensive than the Democratic version.

McCain's proposal would increase education benefits on a sliding scale based on an individual's years of service. The bill would also allow benefits to be transferred to a veteran's spouse or children. It's too bad that the Senate has become so polarized on the issue that it couldn't work out a compromise that would include these changes to the bill that passed.

Barrasso and Enzi shouldn't be faulted for wanting to back a better bill. However, it was clear on the day of the vote that the Webb bill was going to be the vehicle to get a GI Bill through the chamber. If they couldn't support a bill that has the backing of the two biggest veterans' organizations in the country, they have to face the political risks of that decision. Some voters will only look at the high-profile GI Bill, and ignore the senators' individual records of support for other veterans' issues.

On one hand, Wyoming's senators should be commended for taking a principled stand against the pork in the Webb bill.

But why did Enzi and Barrasso recently vote for the farm bill, which contained subsidies for some of the nation's wealthiest farmers? Talk about pork.

In the end, Wyoming's senators concluded that the farm bill had enough valuable provisions for Wyoming ranchers and farmers to outweigh the millions of dollars the nation will spend on unnecessary subsidies. It was a judgment call, and they made the right decision.

If that same test had been used for the GI Bill, it should have resulted in two "yes" votes from Wyoming's senators.

Wasteful spending is a problem bigger than two senators from Wyoming can solve without a lot of help from their colleagues.

But our delegation needs to be consistent. If Barrasso and Enzi want to vote against pork spending, we support them. But apply the same standard across the board to all spending measures.