Line Item Veto Needed!

[Psycho4Bud]

Still piling on the spending


What do spinach, oranges, dairy cows and wildfires have to do with the War on Terror?

Eager to win votes for pet projects - and their plan to get the U.S. out of Iraq - House Democrats in Washington are packing the troop funding bill with all sorts of expensive add-ons.

There's $25 million for spinach farmers who pulled produce from market shelves after last year's E. coli outbreak and $1.2 billion to compensate citrus, avocado and other produce growers for losses in the January freeze.

Other add-ons include $500 million in â??emergencyâ?� money for the upcoming Western fire season, $74 million for a peanut storage program that pays storage and handling fees as farmers market their crop, and $400 million to extend payments to rural Northwest counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging.

Some provisions could be construed as relating to the primary purpose of the bill - war funding and national security - including a proposed $3.5 billion for veterans' medical care and $2.5 billion for homeland security projects such as additional cargo screening at ports and airports, the Associated Press reports.

But another $2.9 billion for levee improvements and other aid for the Gulf Coast after the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina? The federal government doesn't have much to show for the billions already appropriated for Katrina relief, nor has all that money been disbursed.

And worthy as the purpose is, what does a 13-month extension of income subsidies for small dairy farmers have to do with the war? Yet there's $283 million in the bill for that. Plus $735 million to cover shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program and $1 billion to prevent or prepare for a possible avian flu epidemic.

All told, the bill is threatening to top $120 billion, with $100 billion of that for the original purpose - the troops. Meanwhile, the Pentagon backed off on its own attempts to slip into the bill items not directly related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since their giddy first 100 days in office, House Democrats have learned it's not easy to get their pet projects enacted. The much-ballyhooed increase in the federal minimum wage, for example, got stuck in the Senate two months later, until Democrats signaled they were ready to talk compromise on some tax cuts for small business.

But if the troop spending bill is an example of how they intend to apply that lesson in mutual cooperation in the future, they need to think again.

This it's-always-Christmas-in-Congress philosophy too closely resembles the irresponsible and unaccountable earmarking that helped torpedo the GOP majority last November.

If a cause - whether it be homeland security, health care for children or farm supports - is worthwhile, it is worth debating on its own merits, just as military spending should be. Opportunism makes for bad policy on all fronts.
The Sentinel Online : Editorial*:*Editorial (http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2007/03/10/editorial/editorial/daily934.txt)

This is a great example of why I support line item veto for the President. The main purpose of this bill is for troop funding.....leave it at that and let the rest support itself based on individual spending issues.

I remember the flood of "93".......they did the same thing with flood aid. It took forever to pass because everyone wanted to tack on their pet projects.

The Dems new control of congress and senate hasn't impressed me at all yet. I said it before and will say it again.....the U.S. voter will be completely disgusted with the left by the "08" elections.

Have a good one!:s4:

[medicinal]

Still piling on the spending


What do spinach, oranges, dairy cows and wildfires have to do with the War on Terror?

Eager to win votes for pet projects - and their plan to get the U.S. out of Iraq - House Democrats in Washington are packing the troop funding bill with all sorts of expensive add-ons.

There's $25 million for spinach farmers who pulled produce from market shelves after last year's E. coli outbreak and $1.2 billion to compensate citrus, avocado and other produce growers for losses in the January freeze.

Other add-ons include $500 million in â??emergencyâ?� money for the upcoming Western fire season, $74 million for a peanut storage program that pays storage and handling fees as farmers market their crop, and $400 million to extend payments to rural Northwest counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging.

Some provisions could be construed as relating to the primary purpose of the bill - war funding and national security - including a proposed $3.5 billion for veterans' medical care and $2.5 billion for homeland security projects such as additional cargo screening at ports and airports, the Associated Press reports.

But another $2.9 billion for levee improvements and other aid for the Gulf Coast after the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina? The federal government doesn't have much to show for the billions already appropriated for Katrina relief, nor has all that money been disbursed.

And worthy as the purpose is, what does a 13-month extension of income subsidies for small dairy farmers have to do with the war? Yet there's $283 million in the bill for that. Plus $735 million to cover shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program and $1 billion to prevent or prepare for a possible avian flu epidemic.

All told, the bill is threatening to top $120 billion, with $100 billion of that for the original purpose - the troops. Meanwhile, the Pentagon backed off on its own attempts to slip into the bill items not directly related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since their giddy first 100 days in office, House Democrats have learned it's not easy to get their pet projects enacted. The much-ballyhooed increase in the federal minimum wage, for example, got stuck in the Senate two months later, until Democrats signaled they were ready to talk compromise on some tax cuts for small business.

But if the troop spending bill is an example of how they intend to apply that lesson in mutual cooperation in the future, they need to think again.

This it's-always-Christmas-in-Congress philosophy too closely resembles the irresponsible and unaccountable earmarking that helped torpedo the GOP majority last November.

If a cause - whether it be homeland security, health care for children or farm supports - is worthwhile, it is worth debating on its own merits, just as military spending should be. Opportunism makes for bad policy on all fronts.
The Sentinel Online : Editorial*:*Editorial (http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2007/03/10/editorial/editorial/daily934.txt)

This is a great example of why I support line item veto for the President. The main purpose of this bill is for troop funding.....leave it at that and let the rest support itself based on individual spending issues.

I remember the flood of "93".......they did the same thing with flood aid. It took forever to pass because everyone wanted to tack on their pet projects.

The Dems new control of congress and senate hasn't impressed me at all yet. I said it before and will say it again.....the U.S. voter will be completely disgusted with the left by the "08" elections.

Have a good one!:s4:

Line Item Vetos are not the solution, the presidential branch already has too much power. Accountability for expenditures are the way to go. The Republicans will negate every attempt by the Dems to fund any social programs. There needs to be accountability on every vote so the voting public knows who voted for and against what. Even if the Dems could get social funding through congress, the Pres. would Veto it, so the only way left for them is riders on the war bill. The Dems may have taken both houses but the Republicans will stop them on every vote requiring 61 votes, so we have a do nothing congress with only war appropriations being passed because the Dems are too chickenshit to vote to cut off funding for the war. I'm beginning to feel like paying attention to politics is a giant waste of time. No matter which side you're on, they (politicians) never seem to do enough for your causes, a frustrating scenario at best, and it only leaves you with nothing to do except vote every two years and "hope" for better days. The Dems are a bunch of gutless, spineless, weasels, They remind me more Of Joe Lieberman every day, Don't do anything that might piss someone off or jeopardize your re-election potential, disgusting! If I didn't despise the republicans so much, I might change parties, at least they stick together.