Do we get to read this one before a vote is held?
Just askin....
Here in Phoenix one of the weekend radio jockeys were talking about the bloat in the budget during his real estate talk show. He said that the spate of earmarks and pork represented all the pent up backlog of spending that the Dems were unable to get signed by Bush for the last 8 years.
It occurred to me that the spending “backlog” is akin to constipation. And we all know what results when that problem is solved! :)
The word “stuffed” doesn’t even come close to describe how much ear marked Crapulus are in it.
I am confused!
Wasn’t Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of House in 2008?
Weren’t the Democrats in the majority in 2008? (And wasn’t the Democrats in charge of the Senate as well)
And don’t all spending bills originate in the House?
So how is it that she can possibly blame insufficient budget allocations on the President?
bttt
>>>Spending bill stuffed with earmarks
What I find interesting is the emphasis on the earmarks. While they are obviously a problem, they amount to $3.8 billion (accrording to taxpayers for commin sense) in the proposed $410 billion budget bill. Supposing the democrats were somehow humiliated into taking them out, we would still have a bill over $400 billion. I know that it is easy to mock many of these expenditures, but they are not what is driving the growth in government spending. I get the feeling this is an easy way out for Republicans in Congress to attack the bill and look fiscally conservative without having to really have to do anything about the growth in spending in the bill itself.
What do you mean stuffed with earmarks... It’s one big earmark.