Why they didn't sign the Stimulus (Pork) Package. Nancy Pelosi, nota bene!

[Gewehr98]

From CNN today, a list of things that are in the package that made GOP lawmakers go "WTF?"

I'd have to agree, unless they can specifically spell out how these riders create jobs for more than just a few people, I'd not sign it, either.

(CNN) -- On Monday, House Republican leaders put out a list of what they call wasteful provisions in the Senate version of the nearly $900 billion stimulus bill that is being debated:

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

[lone_gunman]

Is there any reason other than partisan politics? 

Why did Bush get support for his plan from most of them, but Obama did not?

[Jamisjockey]

Is there any reason other than partisan politics? 

Why did Bush get support for his plan from most of them, but Obama did not?

Oh, no.  They opposed it until it was stuffed with their personal pet projects.  Then they went along, too.

[Fjolnirsson]

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

I thought the icecaps are all going to melt in a few years? :rolleyes:

[Jamisjockey]

Can you hook me up with the link so I can spread the word?

[Viking]

I thought the icecaps are all going to melt in a few years? :rolleyes:

No no, that was when we were facing Globular Worming. Now we are facing Global Climate Change. After all, climate change is more convenient, right? Whatever the weather does, the ones who want to rob us can point and say "look, we were right, climate is CHANGING!!!!111oneone!!!, now give us your money!"

[AZRedhawk44]

Good call, and you're not the only one to notice it.  I've just written it off as more evidence of the farce of our "two party" system.

[41magsnub]

Some of those may be valid and needed expenses but are definitely not part of stimulating the economy.  I have always thought if a budget item cannot stand up to scrutiny on its own it is not worthwhile.  That is why I can almost talk myself into thinking a line item veto ability is a good idea.

[RJMcElwain]

Good call, and you're not the only one to notice it.  I've just written it off as more evidence of the farce of our "two party" system.

Kinda like a black horse and a brown horse. They might look different, but only on the outside, and they're both owned by the same farmer (the special interests).

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The short answer is that the President is the leader of his party, and congresscritters are supposed to follow his lead.  Not doing so undermines the President and the Concgressritters and the party as a whole.  That's a big reason why it's crucial that the party select proper candidates during the primary elections.

[MicroBalrog]

The short answer is that the President is the leader of his party, and congresscritters are supposed to follow his lead.  Not doing so undermines the President and the Concgressritters and the party as a whole. 

Yeah, supporting that bailout did so great for the party as a whole.

I hope they enjoy their next forty years in the wilderness.

[AZRedhawk44]

The short answer is that the President is the leader of his party, and congresscritters are supposed to follow his lead.  Not doing so undermines the President and the Concgressritters and the party as a whole.  That's a big reason why it's crucial that the party select proper candidates during the primary elections.

This undermines the intent of the Constitution.

Congress was supposed to never act as a rubber stamp for the President.

Sigh.  If only the FF could have foreseen the damage of political parties, in particular when only 2 control the field.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes, because five billion dollars in earmarks are the problem with a bailout several hundred billion dollars in size.

Earmarks are actually one of the better things in American politics, IMO.

[MrRezister]

I can't figure out why they party has to take such monumental losses before the critters wake up and say "Hey wait, we're losing!  Maybe we should start acting like Republicans, yeah, THAT's the ticket!"

It's great that they all found religion at once, but it's still too little, too late as far as I'm concerned.

[AZRedhawk44]

MB... there's at least 10 billion listed in the quote here, maybe more.  I'm too lazy to add it all, but I can get 5 billion with only half a dozen of the larger items.

You'd also be hard pressed to find anything larger than a couple billion for any particular 1 program in the main bill.  Exclusions to that might be large corporate bailouts or loans, but aside from that.... bridges, stadium construction and infrastructure projects get itemized and result in 100 million here, 900 million there.

If anyone has a link to the source bill, I would like to peruse it a bit though.

[41magsnub]

Yes, because five billion dollars in earmarks are the problem with a bailout several hundred billion dollars in size.

Earmarks are actually one of the better things in American politics, IMO.

Its actually 19 billion more or less, I think I missed a line or two in calc, which IS real money considering it is all debt.  Earmarks could be a great thing but are badly abused as we see here.  It enables folks to get pork through the system that otherwise would never be approved.  Again, if something is that good of an idea that it is worth millions or billions of dollars it should be able to withstand scrutiny.  Besides, its easy for you to say..  its not your future earnings making the interest payments on it.

[MicroBalrog]

There are two major ways to control government money in a democratic society. Either you have the legislature control it - which results in pork and earmarks - or you have the legislature apportion the money to have individual programs controlled by appointed bureaucrats in the various "Ministries" or "Departments", as they do in Europe. While earmarks are not nice, at least you can vote the bastards out. The alternative is worse, IMO.

MB... there's at least 10 billion listed in the quote here, maybe more.  I'm too lazy to add it all, but I can get 5 billion with only half a dozen of the larger items.

The point is, nitpicking at stuff like this when you have unconstitutional programs ranging into dozens and hundreds of billions is essentially posturing.

[41magsnub]

There are two major ways to control government money in a democratic society. Either you have the legislature control it - which results in pork and earmarks - or you have the legislature apportion the money to have individual programs controlled by appointed bureaucrats in the various "Ministries" or "Departments", as they do in Europe. While earmarks are not nice, at least you can vote the bastards out. The alternative is worse, IMO.

The point is, nitpicking at stuff like this when you have unconstitutional programs ranging into dozens and hundreds of billions is essentially posturing.

We have to start somewhere, going after the low hanging fruit first is not nitpicking.

[AZRedhawk44]

We have to start somewhere, going after the low hanging fruit first is not nitpicking.

I agree.  GOP leadership decided these are models of egregious spending in the bill, and went ahead with these as attack talking points.  Fine.  There's 800 Billion more in there just like these ones.  They showed us a representative 1-2% of that.

The point is, nitpicking at stuff like this when you have unconstitutional programs ranging into dozens and hundreds of billions is essentially posturing.

If they were only upset about the 10 billion or so above... yes it would be posturing.  Now they've suddenly grown a conscience supposedly, so they oppose the entire bill.

I tell you one thing.... 2008/2009 has taught me to never vote D/R again.  Obama is Bush II as far as I can tell, so far.  I will not endorse this FedGov getting 1 penny heavier.

[roo_ster]

All of the above may very well be true, but I will add a few possibilities that are less nefarious and more practical.

1. The Bush bailout was, IIRC, supported by a majority of Americans

2. The current bailout is opposed by a majority of Americans

3. Perhaps both the Republicans in Congress and the electorate have learned something from the failure of the first bailout to have an effect on their views of jumbo-sized bailouts.

[lone_gunman]

Isnt it funny how the Republicans were OK with the Bush bailout, but not with Obama's.  Its all about partisanship.  Nobody gives a crap about the country

[MicroBalrog]

1. The Bush bailout was, IIRC, supported by a majority of Americans

No. It wasn't.

[Nick1911]

Isnt it funny how the Republicans were OK with the Bush bailout, but not with Obama's.  Its all about partisanship.  Nobody gives a crap about the country

2008/2009 has taught me to never vote D/R again.

You and me both.  R/D are very clearly two sides of the same coin.  :|

Republicans =/= conservatives.  Not by a long shot.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Because it doesn't mean a damn thing now. They can oppose it all they like in public, get more conservative/small gov't street cred, and the bailout they want still goes through.
It's a circus for the benefit of the base.

[roo_ster]

No. It wasn't.

Hmm, Americans have more sense than I gave them credit at times.  Maybe it is only the Republican congresscritters that have learned?