Since some of the pork in this barrel included Alaska and Mississippi, well known red states, who really had a hand in crafting it in the first place? Just Democrats? Hardly likely.
CB, If there is anything our Congress and Administration is good at, it is spending our tax dollars unwisely and wastefully. Every bill they pass has numerous amendments in it for pork. They never learn they have a spending problem. Throw money at everything and hope it works. Reid is a huge hypocrite. He was criticizing Bush for acting to slow on Katrina and now he is trumpeting and bragging how quickly the aid got there. It is kind of like his running mate Pelosi voting to tax the rich starting at $1million and now it is not a good idea. They can’t make up their minds, what is left of them. Republicans are to be commended for cutting this way back and getting the pork out.
Oh, great, just spin the article to your right-wing needs. Forget about the fact that people are hurting; that children don’t have homes to go home to; the list goes on.
I agree that the Fed Budget isn’t a risk tansfer mechanism; that the cost of rebuilding the NJ shore as a tourist attraction probably has more fat on it’s pork than is prudent; and that any rebuilding HAS to reflect future exposures.
But Katrina happened on Bush the Second’s watch, and look how fast he spent that political capital. More people were impacted by Sandy and to get a pittance is short of insulting.
This sounds like a much more reasoned approach. Again with over $16 trillion in debt and annual deficits of $1.2 trillion as far as the eye can see, our country is broke. We need to watch every penny. Spending must be cut. If we are not careful, we turn into Greece.
THERE IS MUCH PORK IN THIS BILL READ IT
MONIES FOR ALASKA FISHERIES ETC
PASS THE ORIGINAL BILL TO GET THINGS MOVING WITH NO PORK AND ADD LATER ON AN AS NEED BASIS–BE RESPOSIBLE TO THE VICTIMS AND TAX PAYERS
We now have $16 trillion in accumulated debt and are adding $1.2 trillion to it every year. We are now broke. It’s like when you have a debit card and make irresponsible charges to it. You can do it so long, but when the money runs out, you have to stop. That’s where we are today.
Starting with Ulysses S. Grant, every US president has asked congress to enact legislation granting the president line-item veto power but it was not until the Clinton presidency that Congress passed such legislation.[3] Although it was intended to control “pork barrel spending”, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was held to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in a 1998 ruling in Clinton v. City of New York. The court affirmed a lower court decision that the line-item veto was equivalent to the unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution.[4] Before the ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.[5][6]
Since then, the prospect of granting the President a line-item veto has occasionally resurfaced in Congress; either through a constitutional amendment[citation needed] or a differently-worded bill. Most recently, the House of Representatives passed a bill on February 8, 2012, that would have granted the President a limited line-item veto; however, the bill was not heard in the Senate.[7]
The most-commonly proposed form of the line-item veto, including the version passed in 1996, is limited to partial vetoes of spending bills, for the purpose of reducing the deficit by eliminating unnecessary provisions from spending bills.[3]
Good points CalDude, unfortunately a line item veto would be wasted on the current President as he sees nothing wrong with deficit spending and believes we are not spending enough. Being from Chicago, he is Mr. Pork despite his Muslim upbringings.
Since Congress cannot help themselves by passing legislation to deal with one problem and must try to tack on numerous pork amendments, I am in favor of vetoing all amendments that do not pertain to the subject being voted on. The reason we have such a debt problem is that it is not their money being spent and they think there is an unending supply of funds to dip into. In the case of our current President, he wants unilateral power to raise the debt ceiling on spending. Is that like the Fox guarding the hen house or what?
Baxtor, the late great Senator Everitt Dirksen once said – A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about serious money. That was back in the 70’s when he said that. Now, we have graduated into throwing around trillions instead of billions since our dollar’s value has declined so much. Insurance carriers total will also be in the billions. What is wrong with this picture?
Neither branch of Congress objected to the Pentagon spending $400 for every gallon of jet fuel or diesel oil they purchase for Afganistan. Why then should they object for money spent to benefit AMERICANS who are in real need?
Yep one mistake deserves yet another and justifies it. Let me repeat for the hard of hearing, we are $16 trillion in debt and adding to that to the tune of $1.2 trillion each year as far as the eye can see. We simply can’t afford this anymore. I really love those who try to justify a current wrong by pointing out a past wrong. I’d love to see your house where you learned nothing from the mistakes you made to it in the past and then just kept on making them.
Dave, apparently some on this blog are legally deaf. I do commend you for shouting from the roof top that we can’t afford this nonsense anymore. Why not give the Insurance Industry a chance to pay claims since they have billions at risk as well? It is not as if thousands of claims won’t be paid if FEMA isn’t there with the $60 Bil. Cuomo told carriers to forget the deductibles even.
Interesting coincidence that Rep Governor of NJ shows non-partisanship in time of disaster and he and democrat NY are denied needed aid package by Republicans on the hill. Don’t tell me that is not a political punishment. Come to NJ and NY and see what happened here (to taxpayers’ properties) and then see if you can fix it with the funds now offered. If not repaired, we will just end up with no tourism industry, and more homeless and jobless to care for. Fix it right and we will prosper and pay taxes in the future.
The last time I checked, the Democrats led by the now infamous Harry Reid controlled the Senate. They can pass anything they want over the Republican objections. It sounds to me like this was more bi-partisan than you think and even some of the Dems in the Senate saw all the pork in it and chose to not go along. By the way, there is a substantial insurance loss in this storm and numerous carriers are involved and have very substantial reserves to pay damages. If it is inadequate, I am sure another package will be passed in the spring.
Typical Democrats, let’s just push this through without understanding all the ramifications. Reminds me of how we ended up with Obamacare.
Since some of the pork in this barrel included Alaska and Mississippi, well known red states, who really had a hand in crafting it in the first place? Just Democrats? Hardly likely.
Just saying…
Are you implying there are no Democrats in Alaska – http://www.begich.senate.gov/public/
or Mississipi – http://benniethompson.house.gov/
WRONG. Do your homework before making such silly statements.
Are you making the assumption that there are no Democrats in Alaska -http://www.begich.senate.gov/public/
or Mississippi – http://benniethompson.house.gov/
Do your homework before making such bone-headed statements.
CB, If there is anything our Congress and Administration is good at, it is spending our tax dollars unwisely and wastefully. Every bill they pass has numerous amendments in it for pork. They never learn they have a spending problem. Throw money at everything and hope it works. Reid is a huge hypocrite. He was criticizing Bush for acting to slow on Katrina and now he is trumpeting and bragging how quickly the aid got there. It is kind of like his running mate Pelosi voting to tax the rich starting at $1million and now it is not a good idea. They can’t make up their minds, what is left of them. Republicans are to be commended for cutting this way back and getting the pork out.
Oh, great, just spin the article to your right-wing needs. Forget about the fact that people are hurting; that children don’t have homes to go home to; the list goes on.
I agree that the Fed Budget isn’t a risk tansfer mechanism; that the cost of rebuilding the NJ shore as a tourist attraction probably has more fat on it’s pork than is prudent; and that any rebuilding HAS to reflect future exposures.
But Katrina happened on Bush the Second’s watch, and look how fast he spent that political capital. More people were impacted by Sandy and to get a pittance is short of insulting.
This sounds like a much more reasoned approach. Again with over $16 trillion in debt and annual deficits of $1.2 trillion as far as the eye can see, our country is broke. We need to watch every penny. Spending must be cut. If we are not careful, we turn into Greece.
THERE IS MUCH PORK IN THIS BILL READ IT
MONIES FOR ALASKA FISHERIES ETC
PASS THE ORIGINAL BILL TO GET THINGS MOVING WITH NO PORK AND ADD LATER ON AN AS NEED BASIS–BE RESPOSIBLE TO THE VICTIMS AND TAX PAYERS
here we go again, another “us vs. them” article…wonder how many responses this one will get?
And the comments are chock full of facts too!
Gee. The Katrina and Ike aid went without a hitch. Why the reduction on the Northeast?
We now have $16 trillion in accumulated debt and are adding $1.2 trillion to it every year. We are now broke. It’s like when you have a debit card and make irresponsible charges to it. You can do it so long, but when the money runs out, you have to stop. That’s where we are today.
Starting with Ulysses S. Grant, every US president has asked congress to enact legislation granting the president line-item veto power but it was not until the Clinton presidency that Congress passed such legislation.[3] Although it was intended to control “pork barrel spending”, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was held to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in a 1998 ruling in Clinton v. City of New York. The court affirmed a lower court decision that the line-item veto was equivalent to the unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution.[4] Before the ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.[5][6]
Since then, the prospect of granting the President a line-item veto has occasionally resurfaced in Congress; either through a constitutional amendment[citation needed] or a differently-worded bill. Most recently, the House of Representatives passed a bill on February 8, 2012, that would have granted the President a limited line-item veto; however, the bill was not heard in the Senate.[7]
The most-commonly proposed form of the line-item veto, including the version passed in 1996, is limited to partial vetoes of spending bills, for the purpose of reducing the deficit by eliminating unnecessary provisions from spending bills.[3]
Good points CalDude, unfortunately a line item veto would be wasted on the current President as he sees nothing wrong with deficit spending and believes we are not spending enough. Being from Chicago, he is Mr. Pork despite his Muslim upbringings.
Since Congress cannot help themselves by passing legislation to deal with one problem and must try to tack on numerous pork amendments, I am in favor of vetoing all amendments that do not pertain to the subject being voted on. The reason we have such a debt problem is that it is not their money being spent and they think there is an unending supply of funds to dip into. In the case of our current President, he wants unilateral power to raise the debt ceiling on spending. Is that like the Fox guarding the hen house or what?
When did millions start not being enough? Now billions are thrown around like it’s monopoly money.
Baxtor, the late great Senator Everitt Dirksen once said – A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about serious money. That was back in the 70’s when he said that. Now, we have graduated into throwing around trillions instead of billions since our dollar’s value has declined so much. Insurance carriers total will also be in the billions. What is wrong with this picture?
Neither branch of Congress objected to the Pentagon spending $400 for every gallon of jet fuel or diesel oil they purchase for Afganistan. Why then should they object for money spent to benefit AMERICANS who are in real need?
Yep one mistake deserves yet another and justifies it. Let me repeat for the hard of hearing, we are $16 trillion in debt and adding to that to the tune of $1.2 trillion each year as far as the eye can see. We simply can’t afford this anymore. I really love those who try to justify a current wrong by pointing out a past wrong. I’d love to see your house where you learned nothing from the mistakes you made to it in the past and then just kept on making them.
Dave, apparently some on this blog are legally deaf. I do commend you for shouting from the roof top that we can’t afford this nonsense anymore. Why not give the Insurance Industry a chance to pay claims since they have billions at risk as well? It is not as if thousands of claims won’t be paid if FEMA isn’t there with the $60 Bil. Cuomo told carriers to forget the deductibles even.
Interesting coincidence that Rep Governor of NJ shows non-partisanship in time of disaster and he and democrat NY are denied needed aid package by Republicans on the hill. Don’t tell me that is not a political punishment. Come to NJ and NY and see what happened here (to taxpayers’ properties) and then see if you can fix it with the funds now offered. If not repaired, we will just end up with no tourism industry, and more homeless and jobless to care for. Fix it right and we will prosper and pay taxes in the future.
The last time I checked, the Democrats led by the now infamous Harry Reid controlled the Senate. They can pass anything they want over the Republican objections. It sounds to me like this was more bi-partisan than you think and even some of the Dems in the Senate saw all the pork in it and chose to not go along. By the way, there is a substantial insurance loss in this storm and numerous carriers are involved and have very substantial reserves to pay damages. If it is inadequate, I am sure another package will be passed in the spring.