Omnibus Slowed Down - Big Big Forums

anothersta · 03-08-2009, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Congress has yet to pass a budget for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, and Democratic leaders now are scrambling to get enough votes to pass a $410 billion spending bill to bridge the gap.

But with the federal deficit widening from economic relief efforts, would it be better to pass no bill at all and simply let the government reap the savings of continuing to operate at 2008 spending levels?

Such a scenario is hardly out of the question. The so-called omnibus bill, which would award spending increases to domestic agencies for the rest of the fiscal year, also contains money for about 8,000 pet projects sought by lawmakers. But progress on the bill ground to a unexpected halt this week in the Senate, forcing lawmakers to rush through stopgap legislation Friday that maintains 2008 spending levels for most departments for another five days.

Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, told FOXNews.com that holding the line on regular government spending would hardly be felt.

"It would have less impact this year because of the stimulus money," he said, referring to the $787 economic stimulus package that President Obama signed last month. Many agencies are getting additional funding from that package, he noted.

After the government delivered more bad economic news on Friday -- a spike in unemployment to 8.1 percent -- the top House Republican called for a freeze on spending until the end of the fiscal year and pleaded with Obama to veto the Senate measure.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the bill is loaded with "unscrutinized taxpayer-funded earmarks" that are "a textbook example of why Americans have grown so fed up with Washington."

But Ellis said the rationale for a spending freeze is weak, given that the stimulus package was passed and follows a Keynesian model of economics that advocates for increased government spending during a recession.

Ellis said his group is not in favor of spending freezes in general because they fail to root out government waste..

So far, all I've seen is spending. When are we gonna start rooting out that waste?

I know where there is some waste I'd like to root out. How's bout the Wed parties at the White House? Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's nice that they associate socially. BUT, does it have to be the finest foods/drinks/entertainment?

I say, put a 60" plasma TV in the rose garden, then barbecue hot dogs, have a cooler of beer, some chips.... that can be a social gathering also and it won't cost your citizen's a fortune while they are lucky to afford hotdogs and chips much less, the beer.

Quote:

"I'm not being dismissive of Minority Leader Boehner's approach," Ellis said. "That's certainly a tool. But we need to have a smart tool" to cut government waste.

Ellis said the only way the spending bill would fail is if one of the amendments proposed in the Senate succeeds, because he doubts the House would vote again on the measure.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., privately threatened to abandon the bill altogether Thursday night, infuriated that GOP leaders were stalling it even though they helped craft it and have a big stake in its passage, according to a Democratic leadership aide. The aide demanded anonymity to speak frankly about a private meeting.

If the larger spending bill ends up being amended by the Senate, the House would again have to act on that bill, giving Republicans more chances to launch political attacks.

Senate Democratic leaders prevailed upon Pelosi to stick with the measure for now. Letting it die would deny large spending increases for some of Democrats' favorite programs, such as food aid for children and pregnant women, in addition to billions of dollars for lawmakers' pet projects.

The measure was written mostly over the course of last year, before projected deficits quadrupled and Obama's economic recovery bill left many of the same spending accounts swimming in cash. Initially, the bill attracted bipartisan support, but most Republicans developed sticker shock in the wake of enactment of the $787 billion economic stimulus bill.

And, to the embarrassment of Obama -- who promised during last year's campaign to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel ways -- the bill contains 7,991 pet projects totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the GOP staff of the House Appropriations Committee.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ment-diet-ask/

SurferGirl · 03-08-2009, 02:00 PM

I am really happy to hear about things that make Pelosi mad.
I really think she is probably the most hated politician in the country closely followed by Reid and Barney Franks and ...................

When will these politicians realize that their continued spending spree will bankrupt our country. You can really tell by the reaction in the stock market the past few weeks that the people realize the politicians don't know what they are doing.

anothersta · 03-09-2009, 05:55 AM

I hope they put an end to that omnibus bill!! It increases spending for many (if not all) gov agencies by 8-10%. Their citizens are losing jobs and will probably be using soy beans as currency (according to colbert's spoof) and they increase their spending!!

Not to mention, the earmarks in the omnibus bill just duplicate many in the stimulus bill so they are trying to give us a double whammy.

And Congress says, "Well, this bill is from last year." Well, I say THAT statement just tells me how inefficient the gov is and why I DON'T want them FORCING me to participate in a gov program to decide if my doctor is being cost effective with my treatment!

The scariest thing I saw all week was a poll that said 25% think gov just has money, doesn't need taxes. What do they think, Congress goes along the highway and picks up cans while they are on vacation??!

I foresee the Dems going down in a fiery crash as EVERYONE I meet is complaining about the out of control spending. Once they start feeling the impact of it (inflation and higher taxes) they won't care who's running against the dems, they will vote for him/her.

I use to oppose a fair tax as I thought it would hurt the poor. But, I'm beginning to think everyone has to have a stake in the taxes or they don't care what the gov spends and it drags everyone down.

Even if it's only 30-50 dollars a year, I want people to care about taxes!!! and how they are used!!

LuvBigRip · 03-10-2009, 01:47 PM

Senate Democrats are expected to win over just enough Republicans to move forward on a controversial $410 billion spending bill by the end of the night Tuesday.

But it may come as no surprise that almost all of the Republican senators who are either expected to support the bill or are considering supporting the bill have billions of dollars worth of earmarks in the package.

The earmark-mania is not unique to either party -- both Democrats and Republicans contributed to what Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates is 8,570 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion in the bill that would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year.

But the Republican crossovers in particular have a lot at stake in the package. Of the three Republicans that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has on his "definite" list, two of them have authored 129 total earmarks worth $190 million, according to an updated list from Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., is actually the second-biggest earmarker, according to the list, with 64 earmarks worth $114 million. Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., is a few notches down, with 65 earmarks worth $76 million.

Both are expected to support the omnibus bill -- along with Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, who has zero earmarks.

They would help Reid attain the 60 votes needed to shut off debate on the bill and move it toward final passage. A number of other Republicans are considered possible supporters, and all of them have earmarks to gain.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., for instance has $86 million in earmarks; Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has $74 million; and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has $25 million.
Shelby told FOX News Monday that he's vetted all his earmarks.

"I wouldn't want to be associated with an earmark on an appropriation that didn't have a lot of merit to it," he said, adding that the system has been abused by some lawmakers. "What we need to do is vet it more and more. I wouldn't want to give up our right to appropriate money," he said. "Otherwise, we cede it to the president, whoever that is. ... But on the other hand, any earmark you have, it ought to have merit, or we shouldn't do it."

Shelby's earmarks span the gamut, from $800,000 for oyster rehabilitation at the University of South Alabama, to $380,000 to the city of Tarrant, Ala., for streetscaping and walkways.

The top earmarker, by value, is a Democrat -- Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, with $123 million worth of earmarks. The senator with the most earmarks, regardless of their value, is Specter with 134.

Other Republicans, like Sen. John McCain, have tried to strip the earmarks from the bill, unsuccessfully. But Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., also broke off from their party out of opposition to spending measures like the earmarks.

"It looks as if Congress is just on auto pilot, immune to the problems" of Americans, Bayh told a Sunday talk show.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...lion-spending/

LuvBigRip · 03-11-2009, 04:44 PM

WASHINGTON – Acknowledging it's an "imperfect" bill, President Barack Obama said Wednesday he will accept a $410 billion spending package that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. But he insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business."

The massive measure funding federal agencies through the fall contains nearly 8,000 pet projects, known as earmarks and denounced by critics as pork.

Obama defended earmarks when they're "done right," allowing lawmakers to direct money to worthy projects in their districts. But he said they've been abused, and he promised to work with Congress to curb them.

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."

In a sign of his discomfort with the bill, Obama planned to sign the bill quietly rather than in public. He declined to answer a shouted reporters' question about why.

Running for president, Obama denounced the many pet projects as wasteful and open to abuse — and vowed to rein them in.

Explaining his decision, Obama said that future earmarks must have a "legitimate and worthy public purpose", and the any earmark for a private company should be subject to competitive bidding rules. Plus he said he'll "work with Congress" to eliminate any the administration objects to.

But he acknowledged that earmarks have bred "cynicism", and he declared, "This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business."

White House officials in recent weeks have dismissed criticism of the earmarks in the bill, saying the legislation was a remnant of last year and that the president planned to turn his attention to future spending instead of looking backward.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama wouldn't be the first president to sign legislation that he viewed as less than ideal. Asked whether Obama had second thoughts about signing the bill, Gibbs' reply was curt: "No."

Obama's modest set of reforms builds upon changes initiated by Republicans in 2006 and strengthened by Democrats two years ago. Most importantly, every earmark and its sponsor must be made public.

In new steps — outlined in concert with House Democratic leaders Wednesday morning — the House Appropriations Committee will submit every earmark to the appropriate executive branch agency for a review. And any earmark designed to go to for-profit companies would have to be awarded through a competitive bidding process.

But perhaps the most tangible change may be Obama's promise to resurrect the long-defunct process by which the president proposes to cut spending from bills that he has signed into law.

Under this so-called rescissions process, the White House sends Congress a roster of cuts for its consideration. Congress is free to ignore the cuts, but both Obama and senior members like Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., say they want to use it to clean out bad earmarks that make it through the process.

But Obama declined to endorse a stronger process advocated by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others, that would have required Congress to vote on a presidential rescission earmark package. Senior Democrats dislike the idea even though many of them backed it in the early-to-mid 1990s.

During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel-spending ways. Yet the bill sent from the Democratic-controlled Congress to the White House on Tuesday contained 7,991 earmarks totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the Republican staff of the House Appropriations Committee.

The 1,132-page bill has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. Among the many earmarks are $485,000 for a boarding school for at-risk native students in western Alaska and $1.2 million for Helen Keller International so the nonprofit can provide eyeglasses to students with poor vision.

Most of the government has been running on a stopgap funding bill set to expire at midnight Wednesday. Refusing to sign the newly completed spending bill would force Congress to pass another bill to keep the lights on come Thursday or else shut down the massive federal government. That is an unlikely possibility for a president who has spent just seven weeks in office.

The $410 billion bill includes significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs. It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/...obama_spending

anothersta · 03-11-2009, 05:04 PM

In a nutshell, we have President Pelosi.

BHO signed in PRIVATE, NO TRANSPARENCY