Bush hits Congress' continued pork

[red states rule]

Why does Pres Bush have to go after Congress for pork and excessive spending?

Dems promised the voters they would do just that if they were elected, I would have loved to see Pres Bush doing this 4 years ago - better late then never



Bush hits Congress' continued pork
By Jon Ward
December 21, 2007

President Bush yesterday promised to crack down on wasteful spending in the just-passed federal budget, lambasting Congress for including too many earmarks in the $555 billion spending bill.

Mr. Bush, at his eighth and last White House press conference of the year, said that the Democrat-led Congress had eliminated "many of the worst" pet projects, but there were still almost 12,000 earmarks remaining in the budget.

"Congressional leaders ran in the last election on a promise that they would curb earmarks and they made some progress and there's more transparency in the process. But they have not made enough progress," Mr. Bush said.

The president said he would have his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jim Nussle, "review options for dealing with the wasteful spending."

The Washington Times reported in February that then-OMB Director Rob Portman told federal agencies that they could ignore earmark language in reports that accompany spending bills. About 95 percent of earmarks are inserted into such reports.

The president could instruct federal agencies to ignore the earmarks in this current budget and spend money on projects that they deem to be higher priorities.

OMB spokesman Sean Kevelighan said stripping earmarks from nonbinding reports is "something that will be explored."

Fiscal conservatives reacted enthusiastically to the president's comments.


for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATION/773767563/1001

[5stringJeff]

The president said he would have his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jim Nussle, "review options for dealing with the wasteful spending."

The Washington Times reported in February that then-OMB Director Rob Portman told federal agencies that they could ignore earmark language in reports that accompany spending bills. About 95 percent of earmarks are inserted into such reports.

The president could instruct federal agencies to ignore the earmarks in this current budget and spend money on projects that they deem to be higher priorities.

OMB spokesman Sean Kevelighan said stripping earmarks from nonbinding reports is "something that will be explored."

This part of the story is very interesting. I read about it in the WSJ yesterday. Essentially, the vast majority of earmarks come out of an advisory report that is "attached" to the budget bills. However, these reports are not part of the bill that is voted on, so they do not carry the weight of law. So, the President (or, by extension, other members of the Executive Branch) can decide not to spend money on earmarks in this report, given that they are not law, but merely suggestions, as it were.

Bush ought to throw out every earmark in the advisory report and spend the money as he and his department chiefs see fit.

[JohnDoe]

This part of the story is very interesting. I read about it in the WSJ yesterday. Essentially, the vast majority of earmarks come out of an advisory report that is "attached" to the budget bills. However, these reports are not part of the bill that is voted on, so they do not carry the weight of law. So, the President (or, by extension, other members of the Executive Branch) can decide not to spend money on earmarks in this report, given that they are not law, but merely suggestions, as it were.

Bush ought to throw out every earmark in the advisory report and spend the money as he and his department chiefs see fit.

I was thinking more on the lines of ....President Bush should throw out every earmark and NOT SPEND ANY OF THIS MONEY, not him choosing where to spend it himself, mainly because Congress, according to the Constitution, has the sole power to appropriate, the President does not.

jd

[gabosaurus]

Why is Bush complaining about "pork" after asking $150 billion for the illegal war in Iraq?

[5stringJeff]

I was thinking more on the lines of ....President Bush should throw out every earmark and NOT SPEND ANY OF THIS MONEY, not him choosing where to spend it himself, mainly because Congress, according to the Constitution, has the sole power to appropriate, the President does not.

jd

Congress has the power to appropriate, which they have. The earmarks, in the advisory report, "tell" the President exactly how to spend some of the money. The President and the rest of the Executive branch decide how to spend money that Congress has appropriated on a daily basis. If the President ignores the earmarks, the Executive Branch can use its discretion on how to spend (or not spend) that money.

[Pale Rider]

Why is Bush complaining about "pork" after asking $150 billion for the illegal war in Iraq?

If the war in Iraq is illegal, then why aren't people in prison for it?

[gabosaurus]

The U.S. refuses to participate in the World Court. Unless it is convenient for them.

[April15]

and bush's 1.7 billion pork doesn't count?

[Yurt]

murtha bon burtha la dema had the highest pork of all

[JohnDoe]

murtha bon burtha la dema had the highest pork of all
Really? I thought Senator Stevens from Alaska held the King of Pork award?

[JohnDoe]

murtha bon burtha la dema had the highest pork of all
ok, in the house of reps you were right, but here is how it layed out and 2 out of three for both the senate and the house were REPUBLICANS, and it was convenient, i might say, for you to leave that out yurt, wasn't it?

HOUSE:



Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, $161.9 million.



Rep. C.W. Bill Young, Florida Republican, $161.1 million.



Rep. Jerry Lewis, California Republican, $136.8 million.



SENATE:



Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi Republican, $773.6 million.



Sen. Ted Stevens, Alaska Republican, $501.9 million.



Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, $429.5 million.



jd

[bullypulpit]

Why does Pres Bush have to go after Congress for pork and excessive spending?

Dems promised the voters they would do just that if they were elected, I would have loved to see Pres Bush doing this 4 years ago - better late then never



Bush hits Congress' continued pork
By Jon Ward
December 21, 2007

President Bush yesterday promised to crack down on wasteful spending in the just-passed federal budget, lambasting Congress for including too many earmarks in the $555 billion spending bill.

Mr. Bush, at his eighth and last White House press conference of the year, said that the Democrat-led Congress had eliminated "many of the worst" pet projects, but there were still almost 12,000 earmarks remaining in the budget.

"Congressional leaders ran in the last election on a promise that they would curb earmarks and they made some progress and there's more transparency in the process. But they have not made enough progress," Mr. Bush said.

The president said he would have his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jim Nussle, "review options for dealing with the wasteful spending."

The Washington Times reported in February that then-OMB Director Rob Portman told federal agencies that they could ignore earmark language in reports that accompany spending bills. About 95 percent of earmarks are inserted into such reports.

The president could instruct federal agencies to ignore the earmarks in this current budget and spend money on projects that they deem to be higher priorities.

OMB spokesman Sean Kevelighan said stripping earmarks from nonbinding reports is "something that will be explored."

Fiscal conservatives reacted enthusiastically to the president's comments.


for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATION/773767563/1001

You neglected to mention that the amount of pork in this spending bill is about half of what it was under a GOP dominated Congress. Second, listening to Bush bitch about the lack of Democrats fiscal responsibility is like listening to Jeffrey Dahmer bitch about how awful men who get their jollies raping and cannibalizing teen-age boys are.

It'll be interesting to see who got the most pork. Early reports indicate that Republicans got the lion's share. We'll see when all of the names attached to the earmarks get sorted out.

[bullypulpit]

If the war in Iraq is illegal, then why aren't people in prison for it?

Because Bush and his merry band pay lip service to the rule of law only when they find it convenient to do so.

[5stringJeff]

The U.S. refuses to participate in the World Court. Unless it is convenient for them.


Because Bush and his merry band pay lip service to the rule of law only when they find it convenient to do so.

How inconvenient that there was nothing "illegal" about the US invasion of Iraq. We don't need the UN's permission to act.

[JohnDoe]

How inconvenient that there was nothing "illegal" about the US invasion of Iraq. We don't need the UN's permission to act. that's debatable....certainly lots to read on it...

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?encquery=7285f203a52fe56ea3f7fd94bcdf32fb&invocationType=keyword_rollover&ie=UTF-8

[red states rule]

that's debatable....certainly lots to read on it...

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?encquery=7285f203a52fe56ea3f7fd94bcdf32fb&invocationType=keyword_rollover&ie=UTF-8

You should be happy Pres Bush is taking the fight to the terrorists. No more attacks in the US - and you do not have to walk around in a burka

[red states rule]

I was thinking more on the lines of ....President Bush should throw out every earmark and NOT SPEND ANY OF THIS MONEY, not him choosing where to spend it himself, mainly because Congress, according to the Constitution, has the sole power to appropriate, the President does not.

jd

JD - I do not care how it happened - I want al the pork gone. There is no reason to raise taxes. I pay enough to the government

Dems have failed miserably to deliver what they promised they would do. They have wasted time and huge amounts of tax money on silly investagations

Pres Bush has run rings around them on several key issues



Even in minority, GOP managed to get its way
By S.A. Miller

Republicans were accustomed to cutting deals to pass their agenda during the dozen years that they ran Congress but have made few concessions this session as the minority party. "Our members went home happier than they have in the 11 years I've been here," said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican.

"Our members went home happier than they have in the 11 years I've been here," said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican. "Our members felt like we've taken the weak hand you're dealt in the minority ... and got the maximum impact."

Democrats conceded to the Republicans' stand on approving war funds without restrictions, fixing the alternative minimum tax without raising other taxes, renewing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) without expanding the program to adults and wealthier families, and passing an energy bill without higher taxes on the energy industry.

Republicans fended off Democrats' plans to bust President Bush's budget cap by $23 billion, to pass a federal hate-crimes law and to roll back sanctions on Cuba and regarding the Mexico City rule barring federal aid from family planning groups that promote abortion.

"On issue after issue, the accomplishments that have occurred ... were on our turf and on our terms," said Rep. Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the Republican Conference.

The minority also remained united to sustain all but one of Mr. Bush's six vetoes this year, joining Democrats to override a popular bill authorizing water projects throughout the country.

Republicans sustained vetoes of two child health-care bills, an annual spending bill, a troop-withdrawal timetable for Iraq and an expansion of federally funded embryonic-stem-cell research.

"A fair reading of the record will show that we have not accomplished everything we had hoped," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. "This was not for lack of efforts by Democrats. On issue after issue, a majority of the Senate expressed support for change only to be thwarted by a Republican minority wedded to business as usual."


for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071222/NATION/247741635/1001

[red states rule]

I was thinking more on the lines of ....President Bush should throw out every earmark and NOT SPEND ANY OF THIS MONEY, not him choosing where to spend it himself, mainly because Congress, according to the Constitution, has the sole power to appropriate, the President does not.

jd

JD, the Dem Pork show rolls on. Pork is up 27% since Dems took over Congress.

and yes, bith sides are guilty - but Dems are running the show, and they promsied to "clean up" Congress

Please remind us again why a tax increase in needed


snips

Congress loads up $20 billion in pork

Congress has loaded up President Bush's request for "emergency" spending on the Iraq war with more than $20 billion in "pork" for members' districts.

Originally, Bush asked for $105 billion in emergency funding. Democratic leaders say they want to grant the request to continue funding the war despite their desire to end it.

"We have provided all of the money the president requested- and more," boasted House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer.

It also includes $16 million to convert the old Food and Drug Administration building in southwest D.C. into more office space for the Capitol. That "emergency" expenditure comes at a time when taxpayers already shell out $600 million "more than double the original estimate" for a mammoth expansion of the Capitol, which includes 160,000 feet of new office space



Senate war bill features $20B in pork

Like their counterparts in the House, the Senate has larded its version of an “emergency” war spending bill with nearly $20 billion in pork-barrel outlays, including $100 million for the two major political parties’ 2008 presidential conventions.

The $121 billion bill includes $102 billion for the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as $14 billion for Hurricane Katrina aid and more than $4 billion for “emergency farm relief.”




The $100 million for the political party conventions — $50 million for the Democratic convention in Denver and $50 million for the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn. — is included in a section described as “Katrina recovery, veterans’ care and for other purposes.”




Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., Monday defended the extra spending, describing it as “common sense and good economics.”

“Funding for the war is not the only critical need worthy of the supplemental spending,” he said. The war “must not obliterate every other concern.”

The one liners continue:

The new bill also includes $13 million for “ewe replacement and retention,” $24 million for sugar beets growers and $95 million for dairy producers.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the bill contains “enough in each of the four food groups for a balanced meal.”

And it includes $3.5 million for the Capitol’s guided–tour program and $20 million for, in part, insect infestation control in Nevada, thanks to Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Among the other beneficiaries of the Senate “emergency” war bill is the tree assistance program, including, specifically, Christmas trees.

“This bill is both literally and figuratively a Christmas tree,” said one Senate staffer who has studied the bill.

http://leaningstraightup.com/2007/03/27/the-congressional-pork-show-moves-to-over-the-senate-plus-a-house-pork-total-correction/

[bullypulpit]

How inconvenient that there was nothing "illegal" about the US invasion of Iraq. We don't need the UN's permission to act.

Under US treaty obligation, we do.

[JohnDoe]

JD, the Dem Pork show rolls on. Pork is up 27% since Dems took over Congress.

and yes, bith sides are guilty - but Dems are running the show, and they promsied to "clean up" Congress

Please remind us again why a tax increase in needed

http://leaningstraightup.com/2007/03/27/the-congressional-pork-show-moves-to-over-the-senate-plus-a-house-pork-total-correction/

Good morning rsr,

your figures are simply WRONG. And the Dems have done a GREAT JOB in cutting pork compared to the previous 6 years under republican rule....READ for yourself....they have CUT pork spending and it did not rise under their rule but was lowered GREATLY and even President Bush gave them credit for making much progress:


http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007

2007 Pig Book Summary

The 2007 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 24 of the juiciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book. (.pdf)



INTRODUCTION

According to the Chinese calendar, 2007 is the Year of the Pig. Fortunately for American taxpayers, it will be a smaller pig than usual. The 2007 Congressional Pig Book has not been this little since 1999, as only two of the 11 appropriations bills were enacted by Congress and the remaining nine were subject to a moratorium on earmarks. There are no indoor rainforests, National Peanut Festivals, mariachi music grants, or teapot museums to be found.

This year’s Pig Book breaks a run of seven consecutive years of record dollar amounts of pork, culminating in $29 billion in the 2006 Congressional Pig Book. This lesser barrel of pork can be attributed to the efforts of Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who prevented the enactment of nine appropriations bills in December, 2006, and the subsequent moratorium on earmarks announced and enforced by the House and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairmen David Obey (D-Wis.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) in H. J. Res. 20, the bill that funds the government for the remainder of fiscal 2007.

There is still enough pork to cause concern for taxpayers, as 2,658 projects were stuffed into the Defense and Homeland Security Appropriations Acts, at a cost of $13.2 billion. Pork identified in the Pig Book since 1991 totals $252 billion. Defense had 2,618 projects, or 204 less than in 2006, at a cost of $10.8 billion, or 28 percent less than the $14.9 billion in 2006. For homeland security, the totals were $2.4 billion, or 10 percent less than the $2.7 billion in 2006, and 40 projects, or five more than in 2006.

While only two bills were enacted, the states of Alaska and Hawaii, which have been the top two states in pork per capita every year but one since 2000, were served more then their fair share of bacon by Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii). In the defense appropriations bill alone, Alaska received $209,900,000, a 127 percent increase over the total of $92,425,000 in 2006.


Based on historical figures, the enactment of H. J. Res. 20 eliminated more than 7,000 earmarks and saved between $12-$15 billion in pork-barrel spending. Unfortunately, in this Year of the Pig, taxpayers are not getting a pork dividend. Instead, Congress took the savings and spent it on other programs.


Despite the moratorium on earmarks, the siren’s song of pork is too tempting for some members of Congress, who have called federal agencies to pressure them to divert money to pet projects that were included in committee reports. The Bush Administration told agencies to ignore such oral communications.


While taxpayers should celebrate a reduction in the number and cost of pork-barrel projects, there is still much work that needs to be done to ensure that members of Congress do not return to their piggish ways in the future.


The 24 projects, totaling $2.4 billion, in this year’s Congressional Pig Book Summary symbolize the most egregious and blatant examples of pork.

As in previous years, all of the items in the Congressional Pig Book Summary meet at least one of CAGW’s seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:

Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.

[red states rule]

Good morning JD - so Dems have passed only 2 of 11 bills and we still have billions on pork

What will the final number be if and when Dems get off their ass and finish doing their job?

Here is a great list of the pork so far this year

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007

[5stringJeff]

Under US treaty obligation, we do.

I would rather our leaders acted in our national interests instead of kowtowing to the UN.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007 has a list of the ear marks attached only to the DoD and Homeland Security budgets....it is painful to watch how the spending of our cash goes to so many pet projects that have no reason being funded by the federal government. I hold ALL politicians responsible who vote to pass the legislation...not Dems or Reps...ALL OF THEM!!!!


You neglected to mention that the amount of pork in this spending bill is about half of what it was under a GOP dominated Congress. Second, listening to Bush bitch about the lack of Democrats fiscal responsibility is like listening to Jeffrey Dahmer bitch about how awful men who get their jollies raping and cannibalizing teen-age boys are.

It'll be interesting to see who got the most pork. Early reports indicate that Republicans got the lion's share. We'll see when all of the names attached to the earmarks get sorted out.

[red states rule]

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007 has a list of the ear marks attached only to the DoD and Homeland Security budgets....it is painful to watch how the spending of our cash goes to so many pet projects that have no reason being funded by the federal government. I hold ALL politicians responsible who vote to pass the legislation...not Dems or Reps...ALL OF THEM!!!!

It is more painful when Dems scream how taxes must be raised while they are wasting our money on their pork projects

[actsnoblemartin]

exactly, the united num nuts


It is more painful when Dems scream how taxes must be raised while they are wasting our money on their pork projects

[red states rule]

exactly, the united num nuts

Libs like JD have been unable to counter the argument as to why taxes need to go up as the pork is also rising

Poor girl has been sucked in by the DNC bullshit

[red states rule]

Good morning rsr,

your figures are simply WRONG. And the Dems have done a GREAT JOB in cutting pork compared to the previous 6 years under republican rule....READ for yourself....they have CUT pork spending and it did not rise under their rule but was lowered GREATLY and even President Bush gave them credit for making much progress:


http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007

BTW JD, the omnibus spending bill Dems passed before going home for Christmas had 8,993 earmarks costing taxpayers at least $7.4 billion

Again, that was just one spending bill, which how many more to go?

[JohnDoe]

BTW JD, the omnibus spending bill Dems passed before going home for Christmas had 8,993 earmarks costing taxpayers at least $7.4 billion

Again, that was just one spending bill, which how many more to go?

Good morning rsr

we are spending nearly $10 BILLION dollars a MONTH in iraq and afghaniston for nearly 60 months in a row!, please tell me what we have gotten out of this kind of wasteful spending? And you and others are complaing about $7.4 billion in a year's time for mostly ADDITIONAL defense projects put in to this bill by mostly republicans?

I just don't understand your reasoning, when it comes to wasteful spending and how you can justify spending $10 billion a month on other countries and not even our own, for our own citizens with our own taxes, including mine?

we have virtually LOST billions upon billions in this war...billions that we can not account for....just gone, no records for it?

Now i am not saying that pork barrel projects are a good thing, because i believe no senator or congressman should take my tax dollars and use it for a special project in their district without going through the full legislative appropriations process....

what i am saying is that taxes may have to go up to pay for the $10 BILLION A MONTH that we have been borrowing from the Chinese and Japanese and Saudi Arabians to pay for this outrageous cost of the Iraq War, if we do not have an economic boom in our economy going forward.

jd

[JohnDoe]

BTW JD, the omnibus spending bill Dems passed before going home for Christmas had 8,993 earmarks costing taxpayers at least $7.4 billion

Again, that was just one spending bill, which how many more to go?

ALSO, the 9 appropriation bills left can not have earmarks....


According to the Chinese calendar, 2007 is the Year of the Pig. Fortunately for American taxpayers, it will be a smaller pig than usual. The 2007 Congressional Pig Book has not been this little since 1999, as only two of the 11 appropriations bills were enacted by Congress and the remaining nine were subject to a moratorium on earmarks. There are no indoor rainforests, National Peanut Festivals, mariachi music grants, or teapot museums to be found.

[Gunny]

I was thinking more on the lines of ....President Bush should throw out every earmark and NOT SPEND ANY OF THIS MONEY, not him choosing where to spend it himself, mainly because Congress, according to the Constitution, has the sole power to appropriate, the President does not.

jd

Obviously, if that was case, Congress wouldn't need the President's signature would it? Congress presents a porposed budget to the President. He has final say barring a 2/3 majority override of any veto(es).

[Gunny]

Why is Bush complaining about "pork" after asking $150 billion for the illegal war in Iraq?

Attempting to hijack with an outright partisan lie? Bad form.:poke:

[Gunny]

The U.S. refuses to participate in the World Court. Unless it is convenient for them.

Who?

The World Court is as big a farce as the UN ... and your political extremism.

[red states rule]

ALSO, the 9 appropriation bills left can not have earmarks....

Want to place a bet on that JD? Dems have promised many things - but they not delivered on them

Are you are foolish enough to believe them now?

[JohnDoe]

Obviously, if that was case, Congress wouldn't need the President's signature would it? Congress presents a porposed budget to the President. He has final say barring a 2/3 majority override of any veto(es).
Yes, of course the President has veto power and this is what he should do, if he disagrees with the way the Congress is spending our taxes....veto it and send it back so that it can be amended and appropriated by Congress in to a form that the President would accept or as you mentioned, have enough votes to over ride the veto, BUT NOT imho for the President to spend in any manner that he chooses that differs with the appropriations from Congress.

I'd rather see him not spend the pork money at all instead of spending it how he pleases verses how our representatives of our taxes have chosen.

jd

[red states rule]

Yes, of course the President has veto power and this is what he should do, if he disagrees with the way the Congress is spending our taxes....veto it and send it back so that it can be amended and appropriated by Congress in to a form that the President would accept or as you mentioned, have enough votes to over ride the veto, BUT NOT imho for the President to spend in any manner that he chooses that differs with the appropriations from Congress.

I'd rather see him not spend the pork money at all instead of spending it how he pleases verses how our representatives of our taxes have chosen.

jd

What get me JD, is Dems are pumping up the pork - and telling us how they have to raise our taxes to fund the government

and you seem to agree with them

[JohnDoe]

Want to place a bet on that JD? Dems have promised many things - but they not delivered on them

Are you are foolish enough to believe them now? RSR,

I would hope that they stick to the moratoriums that have been placed on them to prevent the pork barrel spending.

But as you stated, things can change....I realize this.... ;)

jd

[red states rule]

RSR,

I would hope that they stick to the moratoriums that have been placed on them to prevent the pork barrel spending.

But as you stated, things can change....I realize this.... ;)

jd

Do not hold your breath JD on Dems keeping a promise

It is so simple JD - and I blame Republicans as well

If they cut the pork, there is no reason to raise our taxes

I wish Pres Bush would have taken out the veto pen - at least he made the Dems back down on alot of the pork

It would have been much worse then it is right now.

[Gunny]

Yes, of course the President has veto power and this is what he should do, if he disagrees with the way the Congress is spending our taxes....veto it and send it back so that it can be amended and appropriated by Congress in to a form that the President would accept or as you mentioned, have enough votes to over ride the veto, BUT NOT imho for the President to spend in any manner that he chooses that differs with the appropriations from Congress.

I'd rather see him not spend the pork money at all instead of spending it how he pleases verses how our representatives of our taxes have chosen.

jd

I'm sure you feel that way. Do you feel the same when the President is a Democrat?

My personal opinion is there should be NO pork, nor "earmarks." All legislation stands individually on its own merit. My guess is a lot of that pork wouldn't stand the scrutiny of daylight.

The President is equally representative of the people as Congress is. In this case, I happen to disagree with BOTH Congress and President in favor of the previous paragraph.

[JohnDoe]

What get me JD, is Dems are pumping up the pork - and telling us how they have to raise our taxes to fund the government

and you seem to agree with them
rsr,

how do you feel about the $420 BILLION in our budget that we had to pay this year to Foreigners for the interest payment only on our National Debt?

Don't you think this should be of GREATER CONCERN, than the $7.6 billion in pork that you are complaining about?

Let me repeat this:
$420 BILLION A YEAR, in our budget to pay for an "interest payment" ONLY on the National Debt.

I believe this HAS TO BE ADDRESSED. This is an awful lot of money to be just going in to thin air and not coming back to the tax payers and will hurt our children as it grows in to a larger number each year.

yes, pork barrel projects concern me and every little cut we can make in our spending counts in my book, HOWEVER putting it in to perspective, it is penny change compared to the amount of money being spent to cover our National debt....which will be the "straw that breaks the camel's back".

jd

[red states rule]

rsr,

how do you feel about the $420 BILLION in our budget that we had to pay this year to Foreigners for the interest payment only on our National Debt?

Don't you think this should be of GREATER CONCERN, that the $7.6 billion in pork that you are complaining about?

Let me repeat this:
$420 BILLION A YEAR, in our budget to pay for an "interest payment" ONLY on the National Debt.

I believe this HAS TO BE ADDRESSED. This is an awful lot of money to be just going in to thin air and not coming back to the tax payers and will hurt our children as it grows in to a larger number each year.

yes, pork barrel projects concern me and every little cut we can make in our spending counts in my book, HOWEVER putting it in to perspective, it is penny change compared to the amount of money being spent to cover our National debt....which will be the "straw that breaks the camel's back".

jd

JD, right now the annual budget deficit has dropped by more then 50% since the tax cuts were passed. Revenues are pouring onto DC - yet the Dems are wasting it on pork

So you are worried about the national debt - fine. How about using all the money on pork and paying down the debt?

Again, no reason to raise taxes on us - it would kill the growth and revenues would fall

[JohnDoe]

JD, right now the annual budget deficit has dropped by more then 50% since the tax cuts were passed. Revenues are pouring onto DC - yet the Dems are wasting it on pork

So you are worried about the national debt - fine. How about using all the money on pork and paying down the debt?

Again, no reason to raise taxes on us - it would kill the growth and revenues would fall


RSR,

we can't pay down the debt....can't even come close to paying down the debt....

This $420 BILLION A YEAR that we do pay is JUST the interest payment on that debt and DOES NOT pay down the debt that we added what so ever...nada, nilch, zip, nothing towards the actual debt itself.

I would gladly take the $7.6 billion in prk and apply it towards our year's interest payment of $420 billion which would then make our yearly interest payment $412.4 BILLION a year....so what about the $412.4 billion a year left for our interest payment on the debt, how do you plan to pay for that without hurting all of us?

Our interest payment on the debt is the 2nd biggest expenditure out of our budget next to our Defense expenditure.

jd

[red states rule]

RSR,

we can't pay down the debt....can't even come close to paying down the debt....

This $420 BILLION A YEAR that we do pay is JUST the interest payment on that debt and DOES NOT pay down the debt that we added what so ever...nada, nilch, zip, nothing towards the actual debt itself.

I would gladly take the $7.6 billion in prk and apply it towards our year's interest payment of $420 billion which would then make our yearly interest payment $412.4 BILLION a year....so what about the $412.4 billion a year left for our interest payment on the debt, how do you plan to pay for that without hurting all of us?

Our interest payment on the debt is the 2nd biggest expenditure out of our budget next to our Defense expenditure.

jd

JD, when you add up all the pork from all the bills that have been passed - it is more like $40 to $50 billion.

And keep the books open, we have about 8 more bills to pass - and even more supplemental bills that are passed before the end of the year

[manu1959]

JD, when you add up all the pork from all the bills that have been passed - it is more like $40 to $50 billion.

And keep the books open, we have about 8 more bills to pass - and even more supplemental bills that are passed before the end of the year

and people ask me why we should cut off all foreign funding.....let the rest of the world foot the bill for awhile.....

and no more pork......if people want shit done in their state let them vote a state tax.....stop taking my tax dollars and funding shit in other states.....

[red states rule]

and people ask me why we should cut off all foreign funding.....let the rest of the world foot the bill for awhile.....

and no more pork......if people want shit done in their state let them vote a state tax.....stop taking my tax dollars and funding shit in other states.....

I have no problem with aid to Israel, and aid when disasters strike

But yes - NO TO ALL PORK no matter which side wants it

Then we can have MORE tax cuts since the government would be spending less

[manu1959]

I have no problem with aid to Israel, and aid when disasters strike

But yes - NO TO ALL PORK no matter which side wants it

Then we can have MORE tax cuts since the government would be spending less

i would like to know how much money has been loaned or given and how much has been paid back.....not just from israel but from every country.....

as for disaters......when earthquake fire and flood hit the US how much is sent our way......

i don't mind being helpful but the money could be better spent at home .....

[red states rule]

i would like to know how much money has been loaned or given and how much has been paid back.....not just from israel but from every country.....

as for disaters......when earthquake fire and flood hit the US how much is sent our way......

i don't mind being helpful but the money could be better spent at home .....

With a annual Federal budget that is near $3 trillion there is alot of money being spent here at home - I say to much money is being spent

That does not include state and local budgets

As far as the loans - probably very little is paid back. We are always cancelling those debts

[manu1959]

With a annual Federal budget that is near $3 trillion there is alot of money being spent here at home - I say to much money is being spent

That does not include state and local budgets

As far as the loans - probably very little is paid back. We are always cancelling those debts

i agree too much is being spent.....the US should have a CFO straighten this shit out.....

[red states rule]

i agree too much is being spent.....the US should have a CFO straighten this shit out.....

Now that we have 2 sane Judges on the USSC perhaps now the line item veto should be brought back

$3 trillion is an obscene amoint of money for the givernment to be spending

[manu1959]

Now that we have 2 sane Judges on the USSC perhaps now the line item veto should be brought back

$3 trillion is an obscene amoint of money for the givernment to be spending

see i don't think the line item veto should even be required......

no riders on bills ....period......their job is to pass legislation.....not figure out how to pass legislation and get all their home town projects funded by the federal govt. at the same time.......

[red states rule]

see i don't think the line item veto should even be required......

no riders on bills ....period......their job is to pass legislation.....not figure out how to pass legislation and get all their home town projects funded by the federal govt. at the same time.......

The line item is needed to stop the insane spending

We both know Congressw ill huuf and puff, bellow how they will change, but they wil fall back itno the spending spree

I am willing to start a 12 step program for ALL of Congress to help them on their spending

I will do it for free

[manu1959]

The line item is needed to stop the insane spending

We both know Congressw ill huuf and puff, bellow how they will change, but they wil fall back itno the spending spree

I am willing to start a 12 step program for ALL of Congress to help them on their spending

I will do it for free

my point was if the legislators are required to pass legislation that can not have prok riders then there would be no need for a line item veto.....

so if you want to pass a seat belt law there wouldn't 400 million in funds taged to it for groundhog day celebrations......

funding for that would fall back to the states....states rights....federal taxes would drop ..... and so would spending....

[red states rule]

my point was if the legislators are required to pass legislation that can not have prok riders then there would be no need for a line item veto.....

so if you want to pass a seat belt law there wouldn't 400 million in funds taged to it for groundhog day celebrations......

funding for that would fall back to the states....states rights....federal taxes would drop ..... and so would spending....

It would never happen. Do you reallt think politicans would tie their own hands? They are happy to tir our hands with their laws - but we are peasents to the

[manu1959]

It would never happen. Do you reallt think politicans would tie their own hands? They are happy to tir our hands with their laws - but we are peasents to the

yes it is probably too honest and upfront.......oh well carry on.....

[Kathianne]

my point was if the legislators are required to pass legislation that can not have prok riders then there would be no need for a line item veto.....

so if you want to pass a seat belt law there wouldn't 400 million in funds taged to it for groundhog day celebrations......

funding for that would fall back to the states....states rights....federal taxes would drop ..... and so would spending....

and the most pro 'state's rights' candidate would be Ron Paul, the libertarian, except he's got his own earmarks.

[red states rule]

yes it is probably too honest and upfront.......oh well carry on.....

Perhaps one day it will happen - but I am not holding my breath

In the meantime, Merry Christmas to yu and your family manu

[manu1959]

Perhaps one day it will happen - but I am not holding my breath

In the meantime, Merry Christmas to yu and your family manu

there will be a point when they have run the debt so high it will have to stop....

merry christmas to you and yours as well....

[red states rule]

there will be a point when they have run the debt so high it will have to stop....

merry christmas to you and yours as well....

Well, the annual federal budget deficit has been cut by more then 50%

Gee, if we got rid of the prok (are you reading this JD?) we would be close to a balanced budget and not adding to the debt

[manu1959]

Well, the annual federal budget deficit has been cut by more then 50%

Gee, if we got rid of the prok (are you reading this JD?) we would be close to a balanced budget and not adding to the debt

imagine the surplus if we cut foreign aid and closed all foreign military bases or at least make the host country pay for it.....

[red states rule]

imagine the surplus if we cut foreign aid and closed all foreign military bases or at least make the host country pay for it.....

Not a surplus - more tax cuts

and put the troops from those bases on the border and seal it tight

[manu1959]

Not a surplus - more tax cuts

and put the troops from those bases on the border and seal it tight

first you bank a surplus....so it isn't paper.....then cut taxes.....or you know what invest in upgrading the aging infrastructure......

and yes man the border....

[red states rule]

first you bank a surplus....so it isn't paper.....then cut taxes.....or you know what invest in upgrading the aging infrastructure......

and yes man the border....

Once the surplus is there - cut the taxes

the infrastucture is to be paid for by the money off gas taxes. Last I checked that money is also pouring in

Local and state government are awash in cash

[5stringJeff]

Once the surplus is there - cut the taxes

Or reduce the debt, then lower taxes.

[red states rule]

Or reduce the debt, then lower taxes.

Cut taxes first, that will help grow the economy, and more revenue wil flow into DC which can be used to pay down the debt

IF the politicans do not spend it