Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Porking up the so-called ’budget’
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, July 30, 2005

Not yet a lame duck and, unsurpriningly, still not conservative on spending:
After years of partisan impasses and legislative failures, Congress in a matter of hours yesterday passed or advanced three far-reaching bills that will allocate billions of dollars and set new policies for guns, roads and energy.

The measures sent to President Bush for his signature will grant $14.5 billion in tax breaks for energy-related matters and devote $286 billion to transportation programs, including 6,000 local projects, often called "pork barrel" spending. The Senate also passed a bill to protect firearms manufacturers and dealers from various lawsuits. The House is poised to pass it this fall.
Two pork laden bills and one with which I can actually agree (holding a manufacturer liable for the misuse of the product by a user has never made sense to me).

Of course both the energy and transport bills were used (i.e. porked up with promised money for projects to various legislators needed for CAFTA) to pass CAFTA.

What does the energy bill do? Not much. It's main effect?
"This bill will allow politicians to tell voters they're, quote, doing something about high energy prices," said Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies for the Cato Institute, which advocates free-market policies. "And the bill also allows politicians to hand out subsidies and preferences and tax dollars to well-organized interest groups—and that's what Congress likes to do best."
Business as usual. It really doesn't much matter which party is in power, does it?

As for the transportation bill:
Bush had once threatened to veto the bill because it spends more than he had wanted, but yesterday he promised to sign it. "I congratulate the Congress for completing a highway bill that will improve highway safety, modernize our roads, reduce traffic congestion and create jobs," he said. "I am pleased that Congress met these objectives in a fiscally responsible way and without raising gas taxes."
Wow ... there's a huge surprise.

So much for "less spending" pledge (and principle).
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Business as usual. It really doesn’t much matter which party is in power, does it?

Not when it comes to corporate handouts, no. But when you’re looking at tax breaks for the ultra-rich, unnecessary wars, contempt for the international community, or new authority to hold criminals outside of the judicial system, there is a difference.
 
Written By: neil
URL: http://
As opposed to gas and energy taxes that impact most significantly on the poor so contributions can be made to foreign governments in observance of Kyoto, a treaty that in the best possible world will not work.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Ever notice that the type of people that toss around the term "international community" never define it?



 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
Actually I’m more interested in the "tax breaks for the ultra rich" canard.

Or maybe the "new authority to hold criminals outside the judicial system" fantasy.

Take your pick.

Of course "unnecessary wars" usually are a figment of the 9/10 crowd.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Or maybe the "new authority to hold criminals outside the judicial system" fantasy.
So how has Jose Pedilla been doing lately?
Of course "unnecessary wars" usually are a figment of the 9/10 crowd.
I dont know. I there there are alot of people who have a legitimate basis of complaint for Iraq... considering that the country largely supported this war on the basis of the direct threat to the United States that was told to the public in the form of WMD capacity and links with Al-Quada.

Now I understand the whole ’democratization of the mid-east domino theory" concept as well as anyone else... hell I even think there is quite a bit of logic behind it. That dosent change the fact that this war wasnt sold to the American people under those pretenses, and considering the pretenses it was sold on turned out to be false there are going to be more than a few Americans who were upset about their initial support of the war. (Which, IIRC, 70+% of Americans did.)

Is it really so hard to understand why people would be upset over that, even if you think that despite it all the invasion was still a good idea?
 
Written By: Jamie Rosensteel
URL: http://www.qando.net
Or maybe the "new authority to hold criminals outside the judicial system" fantasy.
So how has Jose Pedilla been doing lately?
Of course "unnecessary wars" usually are a figment of the 9/10 crowd.
I dont know. I there there are alot of people who have a legitimate basis of complaint for Iraq... considering that the country largely supported this war on the basis of the direct threat to the United States that was told to the public in the form of WMD capacity and links with Al-Quada.

Now I understand the whole ’democratization of the mid-east domino theory" concept as well as anyone else... hell I even think there is quite a bit of logic behind it. That dosent change the fact that this war wasnt sold to the American people under those pretenses, and considering the pretenses it was sold on turned out to be false there are going to be more than a few Americans who were upset about their initial support of the war. (Which, IIRC, 70+% of Americans did.)

Is it really so hard to understand why people would be upset over that, even if you think that despite it all the invasion was still a good idea?
 
Written By: Jamie Rosensteel
URL: http://www.qando.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider