Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HOUSE - WHITE HOUSE TEAM UP AGAINST SENATE TO CONTROL SPENDING
House Policy Committee ^ | June 28, 2002

Posted on 06/28/2002 9:54:55 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds

More than 145 Representatives—more than enough to sustain a Presidential veto—have pledged to uphold a veto of supplemental spending legislation that busts the budget, House Policy Chairman Christopher Cox (R-CA) announced today.

“The Senate’s failure to pass a budget has left it to the House and to the President to take more responsibility to control spending,” Chairman Cox said. “Our pledge lets President Bush and our conferees know that they have full authority to save taxpayers billions of dollars. It creates a House-White House alliance in support of the bipartisan House bill, approved 280-138 on May 24.”

The Senate remains unwilling to make tough spending decisions—the latest example being a prescription drug bill more than double the size of the just-passed House bill. A House-Senate conference on the supplemental spending bill is expected the week of July 8, after Congress returns from the Independence Day District Work Period.

The text of the letter to control spending and a list of signatories follow:

Dear Mr. President:

To win the War on Terrorism and sustain economic growth, the federal government must control spending.

To this end, we will sustain your veto of any supplemental appropriation legislation that:

· Requires that you spend in excess of $27.1 billion, the amount of emergency 2002 supplemental spending you requested; or

· Provides less than you requested to win the War on Terrorism, or to rebuild New York.

The bill passed by the House on May 24 by a vote of 280-138 meets these criteria. We write to show our strong support for holding the line on excessive government spending.

Sincerely,

1. W. Todd Akin 2. Dick Armey 3. Spencer Bachus 4. Richard Baker 5. Cass Ballenger 6. Bob Barr 7. Roscoe Bartlett 8. Joe Barton 9. Charles Bass 10. Judy Biggert 11. Michael Bilirakis 12. Roy Blunt 13. John Boehner 14. Mary Bono 15. John Boozman 16. Kevin Brady 17. Henry Brown 18. Dan Burton 19. Ed Bryant 20. Steve Buyer 21. Ken Calvert 22. Dave Camp 23. Chris Cannon 24. Eric Cantor 25. Steve Chabot 26. Saxby Chambliss 27. Howard Coble 28. Mac Collins 29. John Cooksey 30. Christopher Cox 31. Phil Crane 32. Ander Crenshaw 33. Barbara Cubin 34. John Culberson 35. Tom Davis 36. Jim DeMint 37. Lincoln Diaz-Balart 38. David Dreier 39. John Duncan 40. Jennifer Dunn 41. Phil English 42. Jeff Flake 43. Ernie Fletcher 44. Mark Foley 45. Randy Forbes 46. Elton Gallegly 47. Greg Ganske 48. George Gekas 49. Jim Gibbons 50. Paul Gillmor 51. Ben Gilman 52. Virgil Goode* 53. Bob Goodlatte 54. Porter Goss 55. Lindsey Graham 56. James Greenwood 57. Sam Graves 58. Mark Green 59. Felix Grucci 60. Gil Gutknecht 61. James Hansen 62. Melissa Hart 63. Doc Hastings 64. J.D. Hayworth 65. Joel Hefley 66. Wally Herger 67. Van Hilleary 68. Pete Hoekstra 69. Stephen Horn 70. John Hostettler 71. Amo Houghton 72. Kenny Hulshof 73. Duncan Hunter 74. Henry Hyde 75. Darrell Issa 76. William Jenkins 77. Sam Johnson 78. Tim Johnson 79. Walter Jones 80. Ric Keller 81. Mark Kennedy 82. Brian Kerns 83. Mark Kirk 84. Ron Lewis 85. John Linder 86. Frank Lucas 87. Don Manzullo 88. Scott McInnis 89. John Mica 90. Gary Miller 91. Jeff Miller 92. Jerry Moran 93. Sue Myrick 94. Charlie Norwood 95. Jim Nussle 96. Tom Osborne 97. Doug Ose 98. C.L. Butch Otter 99. Michael Oxley 100. Ron Paul 101. Mike Pence 102. Thomas Petri 103. Chip Pickering 104. Joe Pitts 105. Todd Russell Platts 106. Richard Pombo 107. Rob Portman 108. Deborah Pryce 109. Adam Putnam 110. George Radanovich 111. Jim Ramstad 112. Tom Reynolds 113. Bob Riley 114. Mike Rogers 115. Dana Rohrabacher 116. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 117. Ed Royce 118. Paul Ryan 119. Jim Ryun 120. Jim Saxton 121. Bob Schaffer 122. Edward Schrock 123. Pete Sessions 124. John Shadegg 125. Christopher Shays 126. Clay Shaw 127. John Shimkus 128. Bill Shuster 129. Rob Simmons 130. Chris Smith 131. Nick Smith 132. Mark Souder 133. Cliff Stearns 134. Charles Stenholm 135. Bob Stump 136. John Sullivan 137. John Sununu 138. Thomas Tancredo 139. Billy Tauzin 140. Lee Terry 141. Bill Thomas 142. Mac Thornberry 143. Patrick Tiberi 144. Patrick J. Toomey 145. Fred Upton 146. David Vitter 147. Greg Walden 148. Curt Weldon 149. Dave Weldon 150. Jerry Weller 151. Joe Wilson

*Concurring letter


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bipartisan; chriscox; controlspending; savetaxpayers; sustainveto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 next last
To: Deb
So, it doesn't matter that he tried to stop spending and was distracted by a terrorist attack?? Wow, no one can say you "principled conservatives" aren't reasonable.

Strawman.

As you may or may not know, it's pointless to veto something if the Congress can't sustain it.

Then how can you say he fought it? Sounds like that's just giving up to me.

But don't think I don't appreciate the condescending snear that passed as a question. (Condescending smear from Deb follows) And if you really cared about spending (haha), you'd do what Ron Paul requested on Hugh Hewitt's show, "...elect 30 more Republicans so we can save the country from the Democrats."

Did Ms. Cleo tell you how I voted?

(Next condescending smear from Deb) But since you obviously don't understand how the Congress and the two-party system works, it's better that you stay out of the fight all together and wait at your computer for the outcome, so you can take safe cheap shots from the sidelines.

I understand precisely how the two party system works. Looks like it's working great for those wishing to stay in power.

61 posted on 06/28/2002 1:38:09 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
Your remedy would be....

More Conservative Republicans elected? Or less?

Weakening the GOP? Or strengthening?

Backing the President? Attacking?

Being the political genius you obviously are, how do you propose to reduce spending and the government, in the coming election?

You'll use your vote to do what? (That's assuming you aren't the usual FR malcontent who has a big mouth, but doesn't actually vote)

62 posted on 06/28/2002 1:39:22 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Deb
I'll follow anything I like, since I believe the GOP is our only hope and they should be getting more support...not less. But you're one of them "principled conservatives" who likes to pretend it's better to trash the 200 hard-working Republicans in Congress and stand behind unelectable fringe candidates.

Translation: Do not dare criticize the GOP for anything that they do that is liberal. Even if you voted for them, do not hold their feet to the fire when they stray away from their principles. Thanks for clarifying, Deb.

63 posted on 06/28/2002 1:41:19 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
My condescending snears can beat up your condescending snears...every day of the week.
64 posted on 06/28/2002 1:41:58 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Thanks for proving you have absolutely no clue how government works and for exposing the fact that you don't really care about "smaller government". No one is that naive.

The curtain is pulled back to reveal yet another blowhard leftist, wearing a "principled conservative" mask.

65 posted on 06/28/2002 1:47:28 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Yeah, you got me.

Was it my love of the Constitution that gave away the fact I'm not a Republican? I should've known.

66 posted on 06/28/2002 1:50:47 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
There has never been a "surplus." The federal government has always spent every penny of general revenue and then some. With the Baby Boomers in the workforce, Social Security and Medicare have in various years taken in more money than they paid out. This surplus cash was not held in trust; it was given to the Treasury, which promptly spent it, recording the proceeds as income and issuing an IOU. Kids, if you're corporate fiduciaries, don't try this at home.

There are numerous problems with government debt, starting with the fact that it has to be paid back. Money generated by debt is not capital. It represents consumed capital which would otherwise have supported future production. As such, it is the first claim on every future dollar earned, meaning you have to work all that much harder to replenish your capital stock. The U.S. government is so deeply in debt that it is using debt to service debt, meaning that it has COMPLETELY depleted its capital stock. Our future production for many, many years into the future is already mortgaged to the hilt. In order to avoid financial disaster, the U.S. will need to declare its own bankruptcy and allow its creditors to seize its assets.

67 posted on 06/28/2002 2:03:13 PM PDT by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Let's just say I'm one of those who thinks the United States of America is too large and over-extended to continue as a going concern. ;^)
68 posted on 06/28/2002 2:05:35 PM PDT by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
Good lord, you have gone off the edge with that one.I would spend time refuting you on such matters of high finance and economics, but, well, I have to cash out my bank account and head to Grand Cayman before the last plane leaves Pearson today.I need to be one step ahead of the Great Crash.

When we go to a barter economy, makes sure you have lots of pork and beans.Oh, and ammo too.Good luck.
69 posted on 06/28/2002 2:23:19 PM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
Nah, you'll be fine. The government needs you; you don't need the government.
70 posted on 06/28/2002 2:31:44 PM PDT by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
I absolutely agree. You are 100% correct.
71 posted on 06/28/2002 2:41:34 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Oh, one a them "principled constitutionalists" we hear so much about.

That explains why you'd jump in with flying fists and painful pinches, instead of acknowledging that the info that started this thread, is admirable.

Seems the principled constitutionalist...fighting for drug rights everywhere...finds it kinda hard to pat GOP backs, even when they fight for a cause you pretend to champion.

Careful, your bong is showing.

72 posted on 06/28/2002 2:50:24 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ReleaseTheHounds
Well, surprise, surprise.
Lookee at the liberal scumbags who are NOT on the list - - Mike Castle and my scumbag, Greenwood.

If anybody notices other scumbag liberal RINO names missing from the above letter's signature list, please add them to this 'Scumbag RINO List' below.
Thank you.

SCUMBAG RINO LIST

1. Jim Greenwood
2. Mike Castle
3.

73 posted on 06/28/2002 3:14:09 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb
It gets harder and harder to take you "principled conservatives" seriously...okay, we never did.

I stand by my theory that many of these mice are in reality Democrat operatives who come here to the most powerful political forum in the country to nibble away at Bush however they can. This "principled conservative" stuff is just a handy disguise for them.

Of course, maybe I believe this to be the case because I can't believe that there are so many "principled conservatives" who are such stupid, flaming sphincters.

74 posted on 06/28/2002 3:28:55 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Absolute bulls-eye.

As soon as you see the term "principled" anything...look for the donkey's tail.

75 posted on 06/28/2002 3:41:53 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
PING FOR A REPUBLICAN PARTY WITH BALLS!

Except where the Farm Bill is concerned.

76 posted on 06/28/2002 3:42:00 PM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ReleaseTheHounds
darn..none from my area.

but iam in no. cal.

77 posted on 06/28/2002 3:42:47 PM PDT by willy WOXOF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
All this fuss over around 6 billion?

Are you serious? Is that really the amount involved? 6 billion dollars is a problem, but raising the debt ceiling half a trillion dollars isn't?

78 posted on 06/28/2002 4:00:14 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Not surprised that you're a statist.
79 posted on 06/28/2002 4:26:01 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Not surprised you're a doper...

****nanner nanner nanner****

80 posted on 06/28/2002 4:34:18 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson