»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Hey, Big Spender.....
| The Alley |
|
Hey, Big Spender..... |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
BEIJING – President Barack Obama says he's worried that spending too much money to help revive the economy could undermine a fragile U.S. recovery and throw the economy into a double-dip recession. ....11/18/09. . . House approves $1.1 trillion spending measure WASHINGTON – Democrats are muscling through a deficit-swelling spending bill, giving domestic programs their third major boost this year and awarding lawmakers with more than 5,000 home-state projects. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_spending I'll be back with all of the pork stuffed into this one. Oh, Obama swore that, after the stimulus bill pork-laden fiasco, there would be none in future instances. I'll be back with them....  |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, that didn't take long... Earmarks 'robust' in House $1T spending bill By Andrew M. Seaman, USA TODAY A $1.1 trillion spending bill laced with budget increases and more than 5,000 congressional pet projects passed the House on Thursday amid criticism from Republicans and watchdog groups. Among the earmarks: •Democratic Sens. Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, both of Hawaii, secured $3.15 million for a Financial Education and Pre-Home Counseling Pilot Program in Hawaii. Jesse Broder Van Dyke, an Akaka spokesman, said program grants will help identify successful methods of financial education and counseling services, and establish program models for others to deliver those services. Broder Van Dyke cited a recent report that found Hawaii "ranks as the most expensive housing jurisdiction in the country." •Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., secured $930,000 for maintaining exhibits at the Aerospace Museum of California in McClellan. "This is still part of the overall property that was essentially the Air Force base that was closed … over a decade ago," Lungren said. "So this is part of the continuing process of making that whole area viable." Lungren, who voted against the bill, said if all members gave up their earmarks he would do the same. •Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, secured $750,000 for the World Food Prize Foundation, which has undertaken a $29.8 million project to convert a century-old library in Des Moines into the Norman E. Borlaug Hall of Laureates. The federal money would go toward exhibits and audiovisual equipment needed to provide educational information on Borlaug, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and his efforts to end world hunger, said Jane Slusark, a Boswell spokeswoman. "The World Food Prize's Hall of Laureates will teach our children and grandchildren about the state's deep rural roots and the great men and women who have contributed to feeding the world," Boswell said. Ellis said he is not taking issue with these specific earmarks. He added, however, "I am sure there are millions of dollars that have been wasted in this legislation on these parochial projects." Contributing: The Associated Press [URL=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-spending-bill-earmarks_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStor ies+%]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-spending-bill-earmarks_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopSto ries+%[/URL] 28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
For feds, more get 6-figure salaries By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data. Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted. Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector. The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available. When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000. The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules. "There's no way to justify this to the American people. It's ridiculous," says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House's federal workforce subcommittee. The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-Top Stories+%28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo Good time to be working for the government, no? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Sure sounds like it for the federal government workers. Not so for me, a city worker. We haven't had a raise (or a contract) since 2007 and all salaries and incremental increases (usually 4 for each job title, given once each year for the first 4 years, are frozen, at least for the next 4 years. At this rate I may be classified at the poverty level if this continues much longer. And I'm too close to retirement vesting go elsewhere. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Thanks for using U.S.A. Today. I really appreciate the effort. Can't say that I like the facts, mind you, but that's my problem, and I'll deal with it. Very grateful for information we don't need to growl at each other about. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects. McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending. Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." In his first six weeks as president, Obama has faced two huge spending bills that each gave him a major opportunity to demonstrate that "line by line" approach on earmarks. But there were two very different outcomes. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/512/go-line-line-over-earmarks-make-sure-money-being-s/ Republicans and tax watchdog groups are railing against the thousands of earmarks included in the omnibus spending bill that the House passed Thursday and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. The $1.1 trillion bill includes $447 billion in operating budgets for 10 Cabinet departments. Mixed in are more than 5,000 earmarks totaling $3.9 billion, according to watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense. Pork-watchers are only just beginning to sort through the earmarks, which typically are goodies set aside for the districts of members of Congress, as the bill tracks toward a final vote. So far, they've uncovered gems ranging from $700,000 for a shrimp fishing project in Maryland to $30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative to $200,000 for a visitor's center in a Texas town with a population of about 8,000. Obama in March waved off controversy over a $410 billion spending bill that also was riddled with earmarks, arguing that it represented "last year's business." This time around, Boehner said, the president needs to crack down on the pork under his watch. Republicans, though, have hardly shied away from the earmarks. Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., is pushing $200,000 for the Washington National Opera. Sen. Judd Gregg, a fiscal hawk, is behind a $1 million earmark for renovation at the Portsmouth Music Hall. Taxpayers for Common Sense reports a total of 5,224 earmarks in the 2010 spending bill, which also includes funding for Medicare and Medicaid. Groups like Citizens Against Government Waste, as well as Sen. John McCain's staff, have drawn attention to dozens of items they consider questionable. Here's just a sampling: -- $150,000 for educational programs and exhibitions at the National Building Museum. -- $400,000 for renovation of the Brooklyn Botanical Garden. -- $150,000 for exhibits at the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site Foundation in Buffalo, N.Y. -- $500,000 for Mississippi River exhibits at the National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium in Dubuque, Iowa. -- $200,000 for the Washington National Opera. -- $30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative. -- $2.7 million for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, to support surgical operations in space. -- $200,000 for a visitor's center in Bastrop, Texas. -- $700,000 for a project called, "Shrimp Industry Fishing Effort Research Continuation," at the National Marine Fisheries Service in Silver Spring, Md. -- $292,200 for the elimination of blight in Scranton, Pa. -- $750,000 for exhibits at the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates in Iowa. -- $1.6 million for a tram between the Marshall Flight Center and Huntsville Botanical Garden in Alabama. -- $655,000 for equipment at the Institute for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Research in Los Angeles. Republicans have been on a tear over earmarks and excessive spending over the past week, particularly as Congress prepares to take up a new jobs-creation package and raise the debt ceiling by nearly $2 trillion. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/11/watchdogs-foul-thousands-earmarks-spending/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528FOX News.com+-+Politics%2529 Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a leading critic of pork-barrel spending, singled out for criticism $200,000 provided for the Aquatic Adventures Science Education Foundation in San Diego. Rep. Susan A. Davis (D-San Diego) said that the money would go to a program that will "inspire children to pursue education in the sciences while encouraging students from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to college." The bill also includes $600,000 for an Echo Park streetscape project; $180,000 for "training the next generation of weather forecasters" at San Jose State University; and $250,000 for textile research at UC Davis. Republicans, who believe that the explosion of earmarks while they controlled Congress contributed to their losing the majority in 2006, assailed the spending measure as excessive, even though it includes money they sought for projects in their districts. "When are we going to say, 'Enough is enough?' " asked House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who does not seek earmarks. "I don't know how worthy any of these projects are, but I do have to ask a question: Are they more important than our kids and grandkids who are going to have to pay the debt?" Democrats defended the spending as necessary to fund programs that they say were neglected under the George W. Bush administration, and they noted that the earmarks were down from when Republicans controlled Congress. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-congress-spending11-2009dec11,0,869265.story This is president Obama, who has quadrupled the national debt and claims we need to stop spending. Open your eyes, please...... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I agree Mike, you country is in a mess it isn’t going to recover from and your president is an idiot – along with all the deluded idiots that voted for him. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, You have repeatedly asserted that President Obama has quadrupled the National debt. How and where has he done so? Is the National debt computed the same way now as it was during the last administration, when war expenditures were not included in the budget? or are they now included in the budget, where they can and should be counted. Does this account for any of the accounting differences that you suggest belong to President Obama and, you seem to hint, his mismanagement of the government? Do any of these differences have anything to do with the Bailout package passed during the last days of the last administration? This package, by the way, is something that I happen to think was a good idea, and was in agreement with President Bush in pushing; despite the way it was pushed through, I thought it was necessary and correct, even though, as I recall, you disagreed with me at the time. One of those situations where I actually agreed with a Republican initiative, by the way, that my party did not agree with, and which you tend to forget. Perhaps because you were not in favor of that initiative yourself, as I recall. I don't know which of the projects you've highlighted are unworthy projects, because I don't think there are really good criteria for deciding which projects really do nothing except spend money. The Bridge to Nowhere project seemed pretty much a waste because the demographics didn't seem to favor it, but of the bunch you choose to highlight, I could possibly pick two or three, but I wouldn't be sure. The stuff on Irritable Bowel Syndrome is important medical research, and the amount being spent amounts only to seed money, for example. I'd have to do some research into the shrimp fishing industries business; but then, I suspect, you'd have to as well. You've put all of these things uncritically into a list without giving any time to discussing the pro and con of any of them; simply accepting the list as it is. Having spent 35 years in Massachusetts, I know that the fishing industry there has suffered very badly from plummeting stocks of formerly cheap and plentiful fish, such as cod. The situation here on the west coast is much the same. Overfishing, environmental degradation from dumping poison and trash in the oceans, change in the salinity, and so on have made fish hard to get and the market is growing more hungry for them. Salmon is especially hard hit. Shrimp, I hear, is the same. I'd have to check that out in detail to be sure, mind you, but I would find that a highly likely possibility. Wouldn't you think that spending some money to see if there were some solutions to the problems involved wouldn't be helpful? I would. You could go down the list like this. You would find some clear stinkers somewhere, to be sure. But this list is simply not thought out and is disrespectful. What kind of blight are they trying to eliminate for 292,000 dollars, and what are the consequences of nothing is done in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Are the consequences inconsequential, or will they cost the country more money if we don't do anything? Neither of us know, and the people who supply us the list simply assume that it doesn't matter. It really might matter. Maybe it won't. It would be nice if the folks we made up the list thought to give us a heads up one way or another. You get the idea. I'm told that they've got about 200 billion of the 700 billion from that original TARP money back now, with interest, in about a year or a little less, which isn't too bad. We'll still have to make sure we get the rest back, with interest, and make sure the institutions that accepted it live up to their end of the bargain. That may be difficult, of course, but so far it seems like it's at least begun to help things turn around. The real test will be the job market, I think. What're your thoughts on the matter? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The real test will be the job market, I think. What're your thoughts on the matter? Bob, my thoughts on the job market and the waste on the pork and entitlements is the same thing. Actually, the plan. I believe, was to take the return of the TARP money and pay down the deficit. Obviously, that's not going to happen. (anyone who thinks money going back to Washington is not going to be spent somewhere lives in Fantasyland). Ok, so it's going to be spent. One would think that it would be spent on alleviating the record unemployment rate, which Obama correctly calls the most important problem the country faces. After declaring we need to stop spending, he unveils his plans for more spending. You can look at the list of entitlements and determine how well they either add viable jobs (and not just temps) or not.. -- $150,000 for educational programs and exhibitions at the National Building Museum. -- $150,000 for exhibits at the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site Foundation in Buffalo, N.Y. -- $500,000 for Mississippi River exhibits at the National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium in Dubuque, Iowa. -- $30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative. -- $2.7 million for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, to support surgical operations in space. -- $292,200 for the elimination of blight in Scranton, Pa. -- $750,000 for exhibits at the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates in Iowa. -- $1.6 million for a tram between the Marshall Flight Center and Huntsville Botanical Garden in Alabama. -- $655,000 for equipment at the Institute for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Research - $200,000 provided for the Aquatic Adventures Science Education Foundation in San Diego. Rep. Susan A. Davis (D-San Diego) said that the money would go to a program that will "inspire children to pursue education in the sciences while encouraging students from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to college. - $600,000 for an Echo Park streetscape project; $180,000 for "training the next generation of weather forecasters" at San Jose State University; and $250,000 for textile research at UC Davis. Many of these projects many have some kind of worth or not.....but how many will alleviate the job market and create jobs or put poeple back to work for longer than it takes to complete these items or until the funding runs out? You are an intelligent man. Look at them, with an unbiased eye, and deduce what you may. At the time Obama declares we must stop spending, a time when we are still in the recession, when life is getting harder each day for the average American, is that the time, is that the time for these shenanigans? I suppose if you have an irritable bowel, your answer would be yes or if surgical operations in space were high in your list of things to be accomplished, you would also agree. There's nothing wrong with just making a list of these items because their pork smell is so strong and obvious. I'm not giving the republicans a pass here. They are lined up with their hands out, also, along with the rest. It is, however, Obama who, before stimulus 1, claimed he would allow no pork in his bills and, after stimulus 1, claimed that, even though pork snuck into the stimulus package, he would guarantee it wouldn't happen again. It is Obama who will make the final determination and sign on the dotted line to make these entitlements a reality. Bob, is it reasonable to you that a president would claim one week that we have to stop spending and the next week that we need to spend more? Can you explain that to me, please? This stimulus II is not about job creation....it's simply political payoffs and vote-getting ammunition for the next elections. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Thanks for your kind and courteous response. I do appreciate it. You have an automatic reaction to the word “entitements” that might be worth reconsidering. A whole bunch of things gets lumped together there, some of which you may wish to eliminate, some of which you may wish not to eliminate. As a Liberal, I’m pretty much in favor. I’d need to be shown an entitlement before I made up my mind. Oil depletion allowances, for example, is an entitlement I could probably do without. But I would be in favor of the mortgage deductions for homeowners. You might be against both. I’m for medicare and medicaid, both entitlements. You may be against both of them or not, I don’t know. I’m for the VA system, another entitlement, along with many other VA benefits. I have trouble believing you are against them. I have trouble believing any citizen of this country should be against then, truth be told. “Entitlements” is language that may not be appropriate at this point because many of us believe that certain kinds of social investments are entirely appropriate for a democracy with a memory. That includes VA benefits. And it includes certain kinds of investments a Democracy with actual social goals for its people wants to make to further those goals. That includes mortgage deductions for a society that wants to encourage home ownership, and support for school loans that wants to encourage an educated electorate who is capable of producing sophisticated products. I would suggest to you that it includes health care for Democracies who actually listen to their businesses when they complain that a big part of the reason they can’t compete on the world stage is health care costs. Myself, I don’t necessarily believe these businesses, mind you. But auto manufacturers have been saying this for years. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to employ a lot of sick workers. Sick workers slow down production time and cost extra money in production costs. Unemployed sick workers can’t buy cars. That’s one of the reasons Henry Ford paid a living wage to start off with, if you remember your history lessons, so his workers could afford to buy his products. And it’s cheaper to have the government pay for the health care than it is for companies or individuals to do it privately. That expense takes too much money out of the economy as a whole. The percentage is actually growing; and, in the long run, if America is going to make it as an economy, we need to do more than buy and sell health care to ourselves. The insurance companies don’t mind if we do that. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, both of whom seem to be reasonably well taken care of by the Insurance and the drug industries, seem to mind it. Somebody has to mind it if we aren’t to be an economy that commences to swallow our tail and them keep swallowing until we vanish in a flash of paradox into our own maws. That would be distressing. Health care is essentially eating the economy. There is considerable need for expansion of the job market. I don’t think that it’s likely we’ll get enough slack from “waste” to get a recovery going, though. I do agree with you about money going back to Washington being in danger of being spent, but I think that’s not necessarily a bad idea in this case. The return of the TARP money is money that’s been through the cycle once already and has given the economy one boost. If we can invest it wisely and send it through a second time, that will be twice the bang for the same buck, I think it would be the multiplier effect that the economists keep talking about in action. I agree with you that you’d think it’d be spent on alleviating the record unemployment rate. You and the President and I all agree that this seems to be the most important problem the country faces. Where I part ways with the man is where, if you read on him is correct, he says we need to stop spending. I think that we need to cointinue spending that TARP money in particular as it comes back on more targeted projects. Infrastructure is always good. It’s the gift that keeps on giving, such as bridge repair, road repair and redesign, desalinization plants, levees for some of those Texas towns and for New Orleans and some of the Gulf States. Cleanup is also good. It would be nice to have some of the fish stocks resurgent, to clean up some of the local oceans and some of the interstate acid emissions. Some money into research into clean power would be good — likely we disagree here, and especially into possible fusion power. We need our oil supply from manufacture of plastics and other chemical products. We need to put money into good old fashioned basic research, like we did in the fifties and early sixties. We could also free up some money by tackling the amount of money being poured into the pockets of the insurance lobby for bogus and underperforming health care whose primary purpose is to line the pockets of the investors and to destroy the best of what’s been the American health care system. More jobs would be better. A better way of keeping track of what jobs we’ve lost and what jobs we’ve gained would be useful. The one that I see us using seems too political for my taste. Whether this is simply an observation or a reality at this point, I can’t say. In looking at the list you’ve presented, I don’t think they were presented for job creation. Truth be told, if you look at the suggestion that job creation is job one, this wouldn’t be your list. But if you look at reality, not just politics but any sort of group behavior, Job One is never the stated organizational goal, and never will be. the real goal, always unstated, but always first, is to preserve the organization. You can say this is awful, and at times it may be, but when it fails, the stated organizational goal will never have a prayer of getting accomplished. This is an organizational maintanance goal list. My impression was that this was part of the budget list, not the stimulus II list, but I don’t think it would make a lot of difference either way. These are mostly small public works projects and small educational projects and they seem fairly reasonable for putting small numbers of people to work, for changing neighborhoods in specific places, and most of all, for getting people on line for future votes and for future favors to be called in at a later time. It’s the sort of horse-trading that sounds better when it’s done at an NFL draft or in a baseball trade, but it keeps the process running. One or two of them sound as if they might evgen go beyond that. Irratable bowel Syndrome really does need research funding for seed money, and not simply if you happen to have that exceedingly awkward and painful illness. It costs the country a lot of money in disability, and treatments and improved management would be a moneysaver for the country in addition to being a lifesaver in literal terms. I don’t know what the Textile research might do, but if it brings some of the manufacturing back to the US, it’d be a good thing. The business about surgical operations in space may yield considerable data about wound healing that I’ll bet you’ll wish they’d have had before they started whittling on you every now and again. It may, on the other hand, be as silly as it does sound. I’ll bet that John might have some ideas about what use that sort of data might or might not have. As for weather forcasters, you might actual;ly find that interesting. There are a couple of different schools of weather forcasting depending on issues related to global warming. Chris Mooney, has a new science book about that sort of thing that discusses the ins and outs of the weather forcasting biz and how the global warming stuff relates to it. It doesn’t particularly push one or the other side of the two positions taken in the book. It’s not worth buying, but it is interesting to dip into and out of as a library read. I’m not sure that these are shenanigans, nor am I sure they are pork in the way that I would think of it — which would be purely useless projects beyond the actual horsetrading of favors, and without utility beyond that. These, I think, actually have something of some value beyond the trading of favors, but I’ll tell you, in all honesty, I’m sure you’d be able to find some in the bill where we’d probably agree that there really would be purely horsetrading for favors going on, and little if any public utility beyond that. I think that’s probably the way things work in President Obama’s Washington as well as in any other Washington. Nor do I think you’re trying tpo give the GOP a pass, for which I thank you. The Democrats, being in power, will be doing most of the trading here, though. It will be Obama who will have to make the final determination. I don’t believe though that these are actually entitlements. I hope he doesn’t try to say that the bill has to be pork free to pass it, though. That way, he gives control to anybody who has an animus for some of the items in the bill that the President may consider to be of over-riding importance. He may, like Ronald Reagan, wish for the line-item veto; but we may hope that the congress is wise enough not to give it to him, just as they were wise enough not to give it to Ronald Reagan. It would shift the balance too much toward the Administrative branch. Better to get tagged with being a hypocrite than to function as a tyrant. quote: Explain it to you, no. Offer a somewhat biased opinion, yes. I believe that this bill is not an either/or matter, as you tend to see it. I think it is very much about job creation, because the President is not a fool, and he knows that if he doesn’t do what he thinks is his very best to create jobs, he’s going to be a dead duck; and he wants a second term. And that is is also about political payoffs and vote-getting on a more professionally political level for the same reasons — that is, if he doesn’t do a great job as a politician, he won’t hold his party together, he will lose his ability to help his people get elected in their districts, and they will not give him the help he needs to push his programs, and once again he will end up as a one term president. It is not “simply political payoffs and vote-getting ammunition for the next elections”; but “political payoffs and vote-getting ammunition for the next elections” in glorious technicolor, with stereophonic sound and with the latest Dolby additions and on steroids. In addition to being a sincere attempt to do good in the best way the man knows how, with all his glories and limitations. That’s the way I think of it at least. Any reactions from you or anybody else? All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In looking at the list you’ve presented, I don’t think they were presented for job creation. I believe that this bill is not an either/or matter, as you tend to see it. I think it is very much about job creation... Since both of those statements are yours. color me confused. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I hope he doesn’t try to say that the bill has to be pork free to pass it, though. - Bob K updated 3:18 p.m. ET, Tues., Jan. 6, 2009 WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama vowed Tuesday to bar lawmakers' pet projects from his massive economic stimulus plan and to bring unprecedented accountability to federal spending. He told reporters at his transition office that his package will set a "new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review." Details of the plan, which has yet to be drafted as a bill, will be available online, Obama said, "so the American people will know where their precious tax dollars are going and whether we are hitting our marks." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28525113/ Double lie there. First, about the earmark ban and second about the online availability, which didn't happen. (CNN) -- As a spending bill loaded with pork makes its way through Congress, President Obama is getting pushback from members of his own party who are questioning his vow to end wasteful spending. The Senate could vote on the spending bill as early as Thursday. The president on Wednesday pledged turn tide on an "era of fiscal irresponsibility," reiterating his campaign promise that the days of "pork ... as a strategy" are over. And in a prime-time address before a joint session of Congress, Obama last week praised the $787 billion stimulus package signed into law, telling the nation, "I'm proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities." But some in the audience found that hard to swallow. "There was just a roar of laughter -- because there were earmarks," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/05/obama.pork/index.html Let's hear from the stars of stage and screen....Obama and Pelosi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV0Grra3QHs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaDtkG6afBc&feature=related It appears your hopes were shattered, Bob. Also, after all of the pork came to light in the stimulus bill, he then claimed that it wouldn't happen again. Guess what?......just happened again. Yes, I expect you to continue supporting your man but please give these points a little thought, if you can. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: Don't mean to be confusing. One statement is clearly labeled to be about the specific list you presented. The other statement is clearly labeled as being applicable to the bill as a whole. The part does not equal the whole, but only a piece of it. A generalization about the piece does not necessarily apply to the whole. While all apples really are fruits, for example, that doesn't mean that all fruits are apples. While the list has possible pork in it, honestly speaking, that doesn't mean that the primary purpose of the bill as a while may not be to create jobs. If it doesn't do a lot of job creation, it's not going to be doing what Obama wants and needs. Look Mike, I'm not trying to wriggle out of what is clearly a mixed bill. I actually talk about the mixed nature of the bill in my somewhat detailed response. I talk about why there has to be political payback in there. I'd like it if there were less, but I think that there's considerably less than the President's being pushed for. I agreed with you that there's considerable re-election politicking involved. Horse-trading is what I called it. I think that's true. But if there weren't enough job creation stuff in the bill to deliver on what the President promised the public, he knows he'll be a one-term President. I think he's got a sense of ethics that keeps him straight; but even if he didn't, a good sense of political realities would have to keep him pretty much delivering on back to work promises to the public. He won't be doing the more Liberal parts of the Democratic Party as many favors as I would like to see him deliver. That's something that I've been upset about right along. He really is much more a centrist than a solid Liberal Democrat. He really is much more like a Republican Lite, closer to an Ike Eisenhower politically that to my more lefty buddies. I can still press. I'm reasonably clear that his Presidency is going to be a more centrist Presidency than a Liberal presidency. Perhaps things would have been different if Ted Kennedy had survived as a power in the senate. I don't hope to convince you that I'm right. I understand you see things differently. But I did want to be clear, and I wanted you to understand that I didn't see any contradiction between my two statements. This doesn't mean that I don't make mistakes in logic, because I certainly do. But I thought about the differences here before I said anything, and the logic is, I think, solid. And my expectations are not the same as the President's campaign promises, thank goodness. I hope everything's going great for you. Best wishes, Bob Kaven |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
