Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums

Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Woodshed (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Earmark Spending by our President (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=544)

rockdawg21 02-24-2009 04:37 PM

Earmark Spending by our President
 
So much for no earmark spending.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...earmarks_N.htm

Quote:

WASHINGTON A $410 billion spending bill unveiled in Congress on Monday includes at least $3.8 billion worth of funding for the kinds of lawmakers' pet projects that President Obama has pledged to trim from future budgets.

The bill is meant to end a budget impasse left over from last year, after President Bush threatened to veto the Democratic-controlled Congress' plan because of its cost. It would fund most federal agencies through the end of the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. Those agencies are operating under a congressional extension of last year's budgets that expires next week. Congress approved full-year budgets last fall for only three departments: Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.

The bill introduced Monday includes 806 pages listing specific projects added to the spending bill by members of Congress. The $3.8 billion in the bill for legislative projects known as "earmarks" is down about 5% from the $4 billion in fiscal 2008, House Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirstin Brost said.

The House plans to vote on the bill this week.

Steve Ellis of non-partisan Taxpayers for Common Sense said the latest bill combined with $6.6 billion in earmarks already approved for Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs would bring the total cost of legislative projects to more than $10 billion for fiscal year 2009. Ellis said his group has yet to analyze the new bill, so he could not say exactly how much is for earmarks.

Obama and other critics say earmarks are often wasteful, and Obama has pledged to reduce the number and amount spent. On the White House website, Obama promises to "slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels" a campaign promise that he has said would cap earmarks at $7.8 billion.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs sidestepped a question about earmarks Monday, saying he hadn't discussed the bill with Obama. Gibbs suggested that Obama wants Congress to show restraint, saying that "everybody has to be involved in the sharing of pain" in the budget process.

Among them: $142,500 for a museum honoring the late House speaker Sam Rayburn, requested by Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas; $300,000 for a science camp curriculum in West Virginia requested by Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va.; and $150,000 for renovations to the Westwood Theater in Rexburg, Idaho, requested by Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho.

Crisco 02-24-2009 05:38 PM

seems like the Republicans threw a few in there. It's not all Big O's fault

NateR 02-24-2009 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crisco
seems like the Republicans threw a few in there. It's not all Big O's fault

Well, Obama is the one who opened the floodgates and is allowing for all this spending. If this fails, the Obama could be regarded as the most fiscally irresponsible President in our nation's history.

bradwright 02-24-2009 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NateR
Well, Obama is the one who opened the floodgates and is allowing for all this spending. If this fails, the Obama could be regarded as the most fiscally irresponsible President in our nation's history.

Really?,,do you realize that before Obama took office that your country had a 550 billion dollar deficit and was more then 10 trillion in debt?
and most of it racked up in the last eight years,,

NateR 02-24-2009 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradwright
Really?,,do you realize that before Obama took office that your country had a 550 billion dollar deficit and was more then 10 trillion in debt?
and most of it racked up in the last eight years,,

Yes, but that was because we were fighting two wars, one of which is effectively over. It wasn't some Capital Hill, pork-barrel spending spree.

bradwright 02-24-2009 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NateR
Yes, but that was because we were fighting two wars, one of which is effectively over. It wasn't some Capital Hill, pork-barrel spending spree.

this spending spree i think is necessary to stave off a complete collapse of your country financially,,

as far as this being a burden to the tax payers?well lets just say at 480 thousand dollars of debt per house hold pre Obama this latest spending wont really matter that much,,the people were already in way over their heads and most didn't even know it,,

Bonnie 02-24-2009 06:46 PM

Well, since we've never had a female president and most of Congress is made up of males, I feel totally okay with saying, "You men are total spendthrifts!". :tongue0011:

medic92 02-24-2009 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonnie
Well, since we've never had a female president and most of Congress is made up of males, I feel totally okay with saying, "You men are total spendthrifts!". :tongue0011:

If it had been a woman president we'd be in the same situation but every American would have a closet full of government-supplied shoes. :tongue0011:

Moose 02-24-2009 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NateR
Yes, but that was because we were fighting two wars, one of which is effectively over. It wasn't some Capital Hill, pork-barrel spending spree.

Which war is effectively over Nate?

rockdawg21 02-24-2009 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonnie
Well, since we've never had a female president and most of Congress is made up of males, I feel totally okay with saying, "You men are total spendthrifts!". :tongue0011:

Don't be jealous Bonnie!

Besides, when the rest of the U.S. goes bankrupt, Texas will just concede. Our economy is only being dragged down by Washington.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.