One is hard-pressed to find any legislation coming out of Washington that excludes the phrase: and for other purposes. The phrase is legalese for "Pork." And it's been around awhile.
William Polley describes "and for other purposes" this way:
It's a familiar phrase to anyone who regularly reads legislation. Most people would call it "pork." It's the extra stuff that goes into a bill to make it palatable to legislators who are not totally in favor of the main purpose of the bill. These items are not necessarily enough to convert a staunch opponent, but enough to get those on the fence to come to your side. It's a political application of the economist's old friend, "thinking on the margin."
I fully realize that one man's pork is another man's stimulus; however, with all the promised transparency we've been promised, is it too much to ask that money from the federal coffers be identified rather than hidden in other unrelated bills? Really, I sometimes feel like Alexander Graham Bell in this letter from 1876:
Do you remember Mrs. Barnard the deaf-mute? As she was distressed for money to pay her rent and for coal - I gave her money for coal and Mrs. Sanders gave her enough to pay her rent. I have just discovered that she never paid one cent - but has kept the money for other purposes. She has just written to her landlord telling him that she is going to be married! - and hopes he will wait till March for his rent as her lover will pay it for her! I suppose I shall have to pay one month's rent out of my own pocket as I became security for her for one month! Is this not enough to prevent one almost from ever feeling charitable?
"And for other purposes" allows Congress to take our money for something and use it for something else. This is the kind of foolishness that results in wooden arrowheads becoming "stimulus" and nutrition labels becoming "health care reform." It is also enough to prevent one from not snatching Congress bald-headed.
On another thread, several of us from both the "pro" and "anti" camps were trying to make heads or tails of a particular provision of the PelosiCare bill. I was reminded how very much I detest legalese. Triple negatives? I ask you! Why do they use triple negatives to introduce a clause if not to confuse the reader and keep citizens from being able to understand their own laws? Communication has ceased to the point, if ever it was.
There are other versions of DC weasel wording - Employee Free Choice Act and the Fairness Doctrine come to mind. Congress: I am speaking to you! Have the personal integrity and the appropriate respect for those whom you represent to say what you mean. And Keep It Simple Ssssssnake-speakers. Lose the forked tongue. And lose the pork.