AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

2. C.I. and Cyclops:

What's the deal? Are you channeling each other?

JM

Pundits are getting their first look at the most recent appropriations bill passed by Pelosi and company. . . .

What do you think the odds are that he will think $200,000 for tattoo removal is an unnecessary expense especially in the midst of an economic meltdown and crisis?

I admit I erred in when the bill was passed. But I did say appropriations bill. I know the difference between an appropriations bill and the stimulus package.

FYI: The stimulus package is an appropriations bill.

And I can't qualify for certain jobs because I'm too old or too fat or too something. Will the govenrment pay for plastic surgery, a good spa, or whatever else I need to qualify for the job I want? A worthy enterprise if I am unemployed and a drain on the national treasury for sure, but would you consider that part of the legislative intent to assist with the unemployed. Or would that be pork?

(A more MAC approach would suggest that I take whatever work I can find--those tattoos aren't disqualifying those ex-gang members from all gainful employment--and I should save up enough for my own cosmetic adjustments and qualify myself for the job I want. It should not be DebraLaw's or anybody elses responsibility or burden to provide me with that.

Among the earmarks was one sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who secured $200,000 for a "tattoo removal violence outreach program" in Los Angeles. Aides said the money would pay for a tattoo removal machine that could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past, and anyone benefiting would be required to perform community service.

If the AP's demonstration of skepticism is a harbinger of things to come, this would mark a turning point in voter education. Perhaps, there is hope for us MAC's and, therefore, the country itself! I've always thought that, given a balanced view of issues and solution sets for their resolution, Americans will make the right choices. MAC's should continue to post these ear marks until regular voters are educated and become tired of all the pork coming from Congress. MAC's should politely and constantly hammer away at this. 2010 can't come too soon.

I propose that no politician be allowed to speak to the press live. All comments and speeches would be taped and only released after the new government agency, known as the DLGR (Dept of "Let's Get Real"), fact checks the content and provides truthful revisions if needed. We could then run the tape of the politicians' words concurrent with the truth. Perhaps like those speeches aired where there is a person in a little box in one of the corners of the screen, you know, like they use for ASL for the deaf.

Some questions:

1. Doesn't the Constitution charge members of Congress with the duty of passing laws and appropriations for the good of the whole country or is it still constitutional to stoop to parochialism?

2. C.I. and Cyclops:

What's the deal? Are you channeling each other?

And I can't qualify for certain jobs because I'm too old or too fat or too something. Will the govenrment pay for plastic surgery, a good spa, or whatever else I need to qualify for the job I want?

FYI: The stimulus package is an appropriations bill.

In the United States, two types of legislation are used to spend money. An authorization establishes a program that will later spend the money, but may not provide any funding. A mandatory program is one that does not need an additional piece of legislation known as an appropriation in order for spending to occur. The authority for spending to occur for the mandatory program is included in the authorization legislation. Social security benefits are an example of a "mandatory" program. An authorization can create programs and make known the intent of the United States Congress about the level of spending for programs that also require an appropriation. What distinguishes a mandatory program from a discretionary program is that after Congress enacts a law creating a mandatory program, the program is permitted to spend funds until the program expires based on a provision in law, or until a subsequent law either terminates the program or reauthorizes it. "Discretionary" programs typically require annual appropriations legislation.

An appropriation bill is used to actually provide money to "discretionary" programs. Appropriations are generally done on an annual basis, although multi-year appropriations are occasionally passed. According to the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, clause 12), military appropriations cannot be for more than two years at a time. An annual appropriation requires that the funds appropriated be obligated (spent) by the end of the fiscal year of the appropriation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_bill

I thought you wanted to give it a rest. We can do a full review if you like. But it does get fu*king boring when all you have to offer is cluelessness, ad hominem, and straight out personal insults isn't it?

We can still do that full review. I still clearly know the difference between the stimulus package and an appropriation bill. You clearly did not and do not. I clearly stated appropriations bill. But even after I pointed out that the bill wasn't voted on yet, you still kept it up. All you had to do is admit you missed that one word and misunderstood what I was saying and you would have looked a whole bunch smarter.

If the AP's demonstration of skepticism is a harbinger of things to come, this would mark a turning point in voter education. Perhaps, there is hope for us MAC's and, therefore, the country itself! I've always thought that, given a balanced view of issues and solution sets for their resolution, Americans will make the right choices. MAC's should continue to post these ear marks until regular voters are educated and become tired of all the pork coming from Congress. MAC's should politely and constantly hammer away at this. 2010 can't come too soon.

Debra Law wrote:

FYI: The stimulus package is an appropriations bill.

I was wondering when someone was going to point this out for Fox.

Cycloptichorn

After persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects "