Tweet
Darius:
That's an appropriations bill to fund the various agencies in the federal government - something that happens basically every year (though sometims Congress can't get its act together). If Congress is able to, it gets together a budget for federal appropriations. If the President vetoes it (or threatens to veto it), Congress funds the government through a "continuing resolution," which sets appropriations at last years rates (and in some cases, lower). That happened last year. This resolution expires next week, so it's being replaced by what Congress tried to pass last year. This is not a stimulus.
The stimulus bill is a specific piece of legislation that was signed into law last week. It is not this approprations bill. It is not Lily Ledbetter. It is not SCHIP. It is not the commemoration of Black History Month.
So yes, you are still mistaken.
And to be clear, I don't give a **** about earmarks. To see why I don't, look at the proportion of this bill they occupy. I was correcting a factual error that Dino and a lot of Republicans - who supposedly do care about earmarks - have frequently made about the stimulus legislation.
To summarize, if you're going to criticize the stimulus (and there is plenty to criticize), don't make up bull**** complaints about earmarks. And if there are earmarks in a completely unrelated piece of legislation, that doesn't make your complaint any more reasonable. You can complain about that piece of legislation if you'd like.
Ok I was mistaken - instead of including the "inevitable" earmarks in the controversial stimulus bill, they instead "saved" them for almost surreptitious insertion into a catch-all spending bill just one week later, which is effectively one half of the same measure as far as I'm concerned. But I suppose that has no bearing on what his comment implied, right? Or is it A-OK that these are "only" a $3.8B drop in the bucket? Even if he was just gloating, I still fail to see why it's so hard for him to just say "no earmarks, period" and stick with it. It's not like Congress is in a position to bully him around.
House Democrats propose $410B spending bill
House bill to keep govt. running totals $410 billion, features thousands of pet projects
David Espo, AP Special Correspondent
Tuesday February 24, 2009, 8:50 am EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats unveiled a $410 billion spending bill on Monday to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year, setting up the second political struggle over federal funds in less than a month with Republicans.
The measure includes thousands of earmarks, the pet projects favored by lawmakers but often criticized by the public in opinion polls. There was no official total of the bill's earmarks, which accounted for at least $3.8 billion.
The legislation, which includes an increase of roughly 8 percent over spending in the last fiscal year, is expected to clear the House later in the week.
Democrats defended the spending increases, saying they were needed to make up for cuts enacted in recent years or proposed a year ago by then-President George W. Bush in health, education, energy and other programs.
Republicans countered that the spending in the bill far outpaced inflation, and amounted to much higher increases when combined with spending in the stimulus legislation that President Barack Obama signed last week. In a letter to top Democratic leaders, the GOP leadership called for a spending freeze, a step they said would point toward a "new standard of fiscal discipline."
Either way, the bill advanced less than one week after Obama signed the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that all Republicans in Congress opposed except for three moderate GOP senators.
House bill to keep govt. running totals $410 billion, features thousands of pet projects
David Espo, AP Special Correspondent
Tuesday February 24, 2009, 8:50 am EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats unveiled a $410 billion spending bill on Monday to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year, setting up the second political struggle over federal funds in less than a month with Republicans.
The measure includes thousands of earmarks, the pet projects favored by lawmakers but often criticized by the public in opinion polls. There was no official total of the bill's earmarks, which accounted for at least $3.8 billion.
The legislation, which includes an increase of roughly 8 percent over spending in the last fiscal year, is expected to clear the House later in the week.
Democrats defended the spending increases, saying they were needed to make up for cuts enacted in recent years or proposed a year ago by then-President George W. Bush in health, education, energy and other programs.
Republicans countered that the spending in the bill far outpaced inflation, and amounted to much higher increases when combined with spending in the stimulus legislation that President Barack Obama signed last week. In a letter to top Democratic leaders, the GOP leadership called for a spending freeze, a step they said would point toward a "new standard of fiscal discipline."
Either way, the bill advanced less than one week after Obama signed the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that all Republicans in Congress opposed except for three moderate GOP senators.
That's an appropriations bill to fund the various agencies in the federal government - something that happens basically every year (though sometims Congress can't get its act together). If Congress is able to, it gets together a budget for federal appropriations. If the President vetoes it (or threatens to veto it), Congress funds the government through a "continuing resolution," which sets appropriations at last years rates (and in some cases, lower). That happened last year. This resolution expires next week, so it's being replaced by what Congress tried to pass last year. This is not a stimulus.
The stimulus bill is a specific piece of legislation that was signed into law last week. It is not this approprations bill. It is not Lily Ledbetter. It is not SCHIP. It is not the commemoration of Black History Month.
So yes, you are still mistaken.
And to be clear, I don't give a **** about earmarks. To see why I don't, look at the proportion of this bill they occupy. I was correcting a factual error that Dino and a lot of Republicans - who supposedly do care about earmarks - have frequently made about the stimulus legislation.
To summarize, if you're going to criticize the stimulus (and there is plenty to criticize), don't make up bull**** complaints about earmarks. And if there are earmarks in a completely unrelated piece of legislation, that doesn't make your complaint any more reasonable. You can complain about that piece of legislation if you'd like.
Comment