Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senators from both parties add more pork to the war funding bill..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Senators from both parties add more pork to the war funding bill..

    Pick your poison.


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080520/...s_iraq_funding



    Senate loads war funding bill with domestic programs
    By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
    1 hour, 47 minutes ago



    WASHINGTON - Despite numerous veto threats, senators in both parties have loaded up President Bush's war funding bill with a grab bag of domestic programs, including work permits for immigrant farm labor and heating subsidies for the poor.



    The Senate was scheduled to begin debate on the measure Tuesday, just days after a key panel added more about $28 billion to Bush's budget request for this year and next, with almost $50 billion more for a big expansion of veterans benefits under the GI Bill over 2010-2018.

    The new GI Bill and Democratic priorities like extending unemployment benefits are simply the big-ticket add-ons, both of which have drawn veto threats. There's also $50 million to track down child predators, $400 million to help rural schools and $350 million fight western wildfires, just for starters.

    Senators are acting as if the war funding bill coming to the floor Tuesday is the last train leaving the station, and, as a result, have added billions of dollars for pet programs and hitched on several policy "riders" as well. Few if any other spending bills are likely to come before the Senate this election year, which makes the supplemental measure an even more attractive vehicle for carrying spending proposals that would stall otherwise.

    The White House is fighting the add-ons much more vigorously than it did during last year's bruising war funding debate. Then, it accepted $17 billion in spending that Bush didn't ask for as the price for getting an Iraq war funding bill that didn't tie his hands on the war.

    Now that it's clear that Democrats won't insist on a troop withdrawal timeline, the White House is focusing on making sure the measure doesn't exceed his request.

    The Senate war funding bill combines $194.1 billion in spending over 2008-2009 for war funding, foreign aid, military base construction, heating subsidies and a variety of smaller items. Then there's $14.5 billion to give 13 weeks of unemployment checks to people whose benefits have run out and $51.6 billion over 10 years to improve GI Bill benefits.

    There's $108 billion remaining from Bush's war funding request for the 2008 budget year ending Sept. 30. But the White House appears willing to lump that request together with $70 billion to carry the war into next spring, as well as Bush's $5.8 billion request to construct levees in Louisiana.

    That puts Bush's request at $183.8 billion — more than $10 billion below the Senate measure.

    The immigrant farm labor provision added to the measure at a hearing last week by Sens Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, would allow almost 1.4 million immigrant farm workers to stay in the United States for up to five years to ease a shortage of farm workers that has left some crops rotting in the fields.

    Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Judd Gregg, R-N.H., followed that up with a provision to extend an expired program to allow seasonal workers to return to the country using H-2B visas.

    Gregg, typically a fiscal conservative, voted with Democrats at last week's hearing to adopt $1 billion worth of additional energy subsidies for the poor. That provision led top Appropriations panel Republican Thad Cochran of Mississippi — himself the driving force behind $1 billion for coastal restoration in Mississippi — to warn his colleagues that they were simply guaranteeing a Bush veto.

    Still, Republicans such as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas — a member of the Senate GOP leadership team — pressed ahead with add-ons of their own. Hutchison won approval of $100 million in grants to local law enforcement to fight drug trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    It's the type of situation White House budget director Jim Nussle had in mind last month when he chided senators for a "sky-is-the-limit mind-set" regarding "the desire of some in Congress to load up this troop funding bill with tens of billions in additional spending."

    Republican Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri moved to keep open three "veterans business resource centers" with $600,000 in taxpayer funds. One of the centers, naturally, is in St. Louis; the others were in Flint, Mich., and Boston.
    Make America Great For Once.

  • #2
    Grampa McCain will put an end to these shenanigans once he's president!

    Moon

    Comment


    • #3
      Eat a dick, Dubya. If he wants his war he might as well pay for veterans' benefits and heating for the poor too.
      Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

      "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

      Comment


      • #4
        Line item veto anyone??

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Celtic View Post
          Line item veto anyone??
          No. And this is why: the power of the Presidency has gotten way, way out of hand as it is.
          Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

          "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

          Comment


          • #6
            Most of those provisions look pretty good to me. That the Senators would even care what Bush wants just goes to show how out-of-touch they really are.

            People hate this shitty President, and his shitty war. Pack the bill with things people want, slap a timetable for withdrawal, and tell Bush to go fuck himself, and Congressional rankings would go through the roof.
            From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.

            For more than 20 years I have endeavored-indeed, I have struggled-along with a majority of this Court, to develop procedural & substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor.


            I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed.

            The path the Court has chosen lessens us all. I dissent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Celtic View Post
              Line item veto anyone??


              Shouldn't need it...but we do.
              Go Cards ...12 in 13.


              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TTB View Post


                Shouldn't need it...but we do.
                Thank god we haven't had one for the last 8 years or god only knows what Bush might have done by now.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by InSighT View Post
                  Thank god we haven't had one for the last 8 years or god only knows what Bush might have done by now.
                  Presidential signing statement authorizing himself to insert alternate line items replacing those that he vetoed
                  Damn these electric sex pants!

                  26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

                  Bring back the death penalty for corporations!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dredbyrd View Post
                    Presidential signing statement authorizing himself to insert alternate line items replacing those that he vetoed
                    LOL
                    Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Wanna Know a Secret (Law)?

                      “One secret OLC opinion of particular significance, identified last year by Sen. Whitehouse, holds that executive orders, which are binding on executive branch agencies and are published in the Federal Register, can be unilaterally abrogated by the President without public notice.”

                      Such orders means “Congress is left with no opportunity to respond to the change and to exercise its own authorities as it sees fit. Worse, the OLC policy…implies a right to actively mislead Congress and the public.”

                      Here’s something else that’s been waaaay underreported. As of January 2008, the Bush administration has issued 56 National Security Presidential Directives on a range of national security issues. Most of those directives have not been disclosed. “Texts of the directives or descriptive fact sheets have been obtained for about a third of them (19),” Aftergood testified. Only the titles have been obtained on 8 of the directives and absolutely no information is available for 10.
                      Damn these electric sex pants!

                      26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

                      Bring back the death penalty for corporations!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X