more of the same

DosEquis · 03-20-2007, 01:17 PM

WP: War bill includes tempting projects - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

I wrote a letter to my congressman, Lee Terry (R), about a year or two ago when it came to funding the war and attaching pet projects. Long story short i said it was bullshit to hijack funding for our soldiers with a bridge to no where and a 50 million dollar indoor jungle in the middle of Iowa. Then if you vote no against the bill for its crappy spending, naturally you vote no for funding soldiers, which equals you do not support the troops.

Here is the main part of the article that pisses me off:

Originally Posted by msnbc

For Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), there is $25 million for spinach growers hurt by last year's E. coli scare. For three conservative Democrats in Georgia, there is $75 million for peanut storage. For lawmakers from the bone-dry West, there is $500 million for wildfire suppression. An additional $120 million is earmarked for shrimp and Atlantic menhaden fishermen.

So far, at least in public pronouncements, the $21 billion in funding beyond President Bush's request has earned Democrats nothing but scorn.

For more than a year, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R) has tried unsuccessfully to secure federal funds to prevent salt water from intruding on rice fields in his lowland Louisiana district. So it came as a surprise last week when Boustany found $15 million in the House's huge war spending bill for his rice farmers. He hadn't even asked that the bill include it.

Clearly the spending problem is bipartisan. There was 24 billion, 6000+ pet projects on the highway bill under an all republican government. The bridge to no where and others were attached to war spending bills under an all republican government. Now, the democrats are doing it to buy votes also. This is just beyond unacceptable. I am disgusted really. I really dont understand why all of us have to pay for peanut storage in georgia. If it is really important, present the bill infront of government and make a case for it. Tell me why peanut storage is needed and why federal money is needed to pay for it. If it makes sense then vote yes or no on it, on its own merits.

Lee Terry claimed to agree that a bill should be able to go through on its own merits but explained it would be extremely difficult to get support to establish spending policies that force the bill to have spending with items related. For eexample if it is a war spending bill, have it 100% military related. Quite honestly it could still have pork via extra money for a humvee plant in the congressmans district, etc. But at least the pork is related and we are not grouping peanut storage with fighter planes.

Bottom line is this is not acceptable and if I had a democratic congressman i'd write them and tell them out disappointed I was.

tbone · 03-20-2007, 01:52 PM

Isn't there a proposal to stop the add ons? I heard it somewhere recently.

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

Isn't there a proposal to stop the add ons? I heard it somewhere recently.

I think you are referring to the Stop over spending act of 2006...

link...

pretty sure it is dead with the change of power...but will more than likely see another version...this one got lots of press though..

DosEquis · 03-20-2007, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

I think you are referring to the Stop over spending act of 2006...

link...

pretty sure it is dead with the change of power...but will more than likely see another version...this one got lots of press though..

lineitemveto.pdf (

) is not the solution we need. Giving more power to the executive is not an option. We need to keep related spending on related bills. Peanut storage should be on an agricultural bill with drought relief or whatever else. Then vote on that stuff seperately. Hijacking funding for troops with peanut storage is just ridiculous.

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

lineitemveto.pdf ( ) is not the solution we need. Giving more power to the executive is not an option. We need to keep related spending on related bills. Peanut storage should be on an agricultural bill with drought relief or whatever else. Then vote on that stuff seperately. Hijacking funding for troops with peanut storage is just ridiculous.

wasnt trying to push agenda...trying to think what he was referring to...if pointnot on, I can accept that...

hsmith · 03-20-2007, 02:35 PM

they should do away with riders and vote on bills up or down on their own merrits.

but this will never happen, pork is how they get elected, pork is vital to them.

ballz2wallz · 03-20-2007, 02:59 PM

I thought the Dems promised to put an end to this nonsense?

Stylerod · 03-20-2007, 03:08 PM

This is something both parties are guilty of and I wish there was some way it will stop, but it won't. Not as long as these people need millions to get reelected every term. They need to keep the main $$$ givers happy and they do that through pet projects.

(Strange MSNBC wrote "For three conservative Democrats in Georgia...", guess they couldn't just say Democrats

)

Thorgrim · 03-20-2007, 05:04 PM

They are conservative...a better example are democrats like Gene Taylor who usually vote more with the GOP than his own party, he's a strong conservative

Also, about the bill, lets wait until there's a vote before we make any judgements, but it seems like they are playing hardball because they simply didn't have the votes for the 2008 deadline

Everyone saying "The democrats should do everything they can to get the troops out as soon as possible or they're hypocrits" are now rolling their eyes when the Democrats are doing just that, atleast that it what it seems like, until
A) the bill is voted on
B) the bill is vetoed or signed into law

We won't really know the general strategy behind this, you guys are assuming this will become law, maybe they threw in pork because Senate Dems told them there's no way it'll pass the Senate but it'll send a message to the WH that they have the votes for a deadline and it'll send a message to Iraqis to work harder

DosEquis · 03-20-2007, 05:10 PM

The president would veto it. The problem is that I would never put forth legislation that I did not intend on passing. Pelosi said this would be "the most transparent" congress. This kind of shit is pretty shady. I understand why they are doing it, but i disagree completely. It is about doing the right thing the first time, not something ethically questionable to try to get a 2008 deadline there. People are sweating the democrats to get it done. If they put legislation up there and republicans vote no, then what else can they do? Their majority is far too slim and the president will just veto. Personally i think they made to big of deal of getting "control" when they really do not have that much control.

Thorgrim · 03-20-2007, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The president would veto it. The problem is that I would never put forth legislation that I did not intend on passing. Pelosi said this would be "the most transparent" congress. This kind of shit is pretty shady. I understand why they are doing it, but i disagree completely. It is about doing the right thing the first time, not something ethically questionable to try to get a 2008 deadline there. People are sweating the democrats to get it done. If they put legislation up there and republicans vote no, then what else can they do? Their majority is far too slim and the president will just veto. Personally i think they made to big of deal of getting "control" when they really do not have that much control.

If everyone is seeing what they are spending the pork on...I don't see how that is not transparent?

This is hardball politics, the only kind that wins anymore...look at VoteVets and their ads about body armour, that probably tipped the balance and gave the Democrats the Senate, in an era where the GOP is throwing the same if not worse mud back, and everyone agrees negative ads work even if people "claim" they dislike them...

tbone · 03-21-2007, 11:05 AM

It was originally the line item veto proposal I had heard, but then I think Pelosi promised to eliminate it as well in the first 100 days? Minds a bit fuzzy on the details.

hsmith · 03-21-2007, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If everyone is seeing what they are spending the pork on...I don't see how that is not transparent?

This is hardball politics, the only kind that wins anymore...look at VoteVets and their ads about body armour, that probably tipped the balance and gave the Democrats the Senate, in an era where the GOP is throwing the same if not worse mud back, and everyone agrees negative ads work even if people "claim" they dislike them...

Could you make any more excuses?

Thorgrim · 03-21-2007, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Could you make any more excuses?

They've been the party that takes the lesser of two evils...trillions more in Iraq with american deaths or a few billion in pork and less american deaths

easy call

MTdream · 03-21-2007, 04:36 PM

[quote=tbone;92067]It was originally the line item veto proposal I had heard, quote]

wow imagine that...post 3 above...

JaJae · 03-21-2007, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

Isn't there a proposal to stop the add ons? I heard it somewhere recently.

Other Democrats who want to bring the troops home like Woolsey have proposed a bill as well that says bring troops home by Christmas time essentially without all the pork spending.

Bush has also said he would veto a bill if they won't send him a bill that has all the pork tacked on.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-21-2007, 06:07 PM

this excessive spending is redamndiculous.

In fact I'm 100% sick of it. 75 million for penut storage? You chose to be a penut growing deal with it...shit...man this is the kinda stuff that really gripes me.

I think we need to have a maximum of 3 add-on's per bill, thats it. Nothing more, period or it automatically gets killed. The pork is spending this country dry and its coming from the left and the right. We need everyone to email and call their senators/congressmen to put an end to this crap.

JaJae · 03-21-2007, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

this excessive spending is redamndiculous.

In fact I'm 100% sick of it. 75 million for penut storage? You chose to be a penut growing deal with it...shit...man this is the kinda stuff that really gripes me.

I think we need to have a maximum of 3 add-on's per bill, thats it. Nothing more, period or it automatically gets killed. The pork is spending this country dry and its coming from the left and the right. We need everyone to email and call their senators/congressmen to put an end to this crap.

I think that and a percentage. Only a 5% add-on in total cost. Total. If a bill is $100billion they can't add more than $5billion in sub-spending without creating a new bill that needs to be voted on. It's time to nip this in the bud.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-21-2007, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think that and a percentage. Only a 5% add-on in total cost. Total. If a bill is $100billion they can't add more than $5billion in sub-spending without creating a new bill that needs to be voted on. It's time to nip this in the bud.

Yes I would agree with that. Not either or but you have to meet both conditions. No more than 3 and no more than 5%.

Thorgrim · 03-21-2007, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

this excessive spending is redamndiculous.

In fact I'm 100% sick of it. 75 million for penut storage? You chose to be a penut growing deal with it...shit...man this is the kinda stuff that really gripes me.

I think we need to have a maximum of 3 add-on's per bill, thats it. Nothing more, period or it automatically gets killed. The pork is spending this country dry and its coming from the left and the right. We need everyone to email and call their senators/congressmen to put an end to this crap.

Maybe, as a Republican, you should have started a movement to deal with this, rather than have 6 years of GOP pork and THEN whine when the GOP can no longer propose bills