The $516 Billion Ominous Spending Bill
Last night the House approved a $516 Billion Spending Bill which funded our troops in Afghanistan, Ignored our troops in Iraq, shifted billions of dollars into sensitive programs the president sought to cut and guts the Secure Fence Act!
More blow the fold...
The House Monday approved a $516 billion measure funding 14 Cabinet agencies and funding for troops in Afghanistan, setting the stage for a year-end budget deal with the White House.
President Bush has signaled he'll ultimately sign the measure — assuming up to $40 billion more is provided by the Senate for the Iraq war — despite opposition from GOP conservatives.
In an unusual two-step, lawmakers first voted 253-154 to approve the omnibus spending bill; they then voted 206-201 to add $31 billion for troops in Afghanistan to the measure. The combined $516 billion spending package is set for Senate debate on Tuesday.
At today's bloggers lunch at The Heritage Foundation Senator Tom Coburn and Representatives Jeb Hensarling and Roy Blunt all weighed in on the bill saying while voting against the bill, for the most part, it's far better than one would have hoped to see from a Democrat controlled House and Senate.
Congressman Blunt said this about the bill:
"In trying to push through a half-trillion dollars in government spending this evening, Democrats will claim their bottom-line numbers are in line with the president's, and their top-line priorities are in line with the American people's. But as page after page of this massive document makes plain, neither contention is true.
"Standing more than a foot tall and coming in at 3,000 pages, examples of misguided policy decisions in this bill are not difficult to find. On one page, for instance, you will find a set of new restrictions on the construction of our security fence along the border; on another, $10 million in 'emergency' funding for attorneys of illegal immigrants. Along with those, you'll even find language gutting a Senate-passed provision encouraging English in the workplace. And as we continue to cull through the text, that may prove to be just the tip of the iceberg.
"But worse than what's in the bill -- and there's plenty here to be concerned about -- is what was deliberately left out: the funds our men and women in uniform need to build on their progress in Iraq and return home safe, secure and successful. On the necessity of these resources, the secretary of Defense could not have been clearer. But as the first session of this Congress comes to a close, it appears House Democrats would prefer to leave our troops out in the cold.
"For all these reasons, and many others, I will vote against this
misguided omnibus bill tonight."
I want to draw your attention to a new site that Heritage has lunched to use as a resource for tracking this bill called Omnibusting. There is a wealth of information stored on the site a lot of which I'm sharing with you in this piece.
In his 2007 State of the Union address, President Bush said: " Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour – when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate – they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process, expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress, and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session."
According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), there were 13,492 appropriations earmarks in fiscal year 2005 see Earmarks in 2005 Appropriation Bills so in order to meet the president's "50 percent reduction," Congress could not pass more than 6,476 earmarks for fiscal year 2008.
Yet, the 2008 omnibus spending bill contains 9,170 earmarks in the 2008 omnibus spending bill. This total, in addition to the 2,161 earmarks in the 2008 defense spending bill (none of which were requested by the Pentagon), bring this year's earmark total to 11,331 earmarks for 2008, a mere 16 percent reduction compared to OMB's baseline of 13,492 earmarks in 2005. (Note: all earmark estimates exclude earmarks requested by the White House.) See Sen. Coburn's site for more details
Winners and Losers: Omnibus Favors Some Government Programs More Than Others
Lawmakers boosted funding for these programs:
• NEA Increase: $20 million increase for the National Endowment of the Arts
• Foreign Aid Increase: $1.5 billion increase for state and foreign operations
• AFL-CIO Grants: two non-competitive grants for the AFL-CIO totaling $3.7 million
• New Office Building: $16 million to convert the former FDA building for use by the House. In addition to the Capitol, the House already has four office buildings—and is still yet to complete construction on a new Capitol Visitors Center.
These programs will be shortchanged in fiscal 2008:
• BRAC: The President’s Budget Request for BRAC is reduced by $900 million.
• Nuclear Weapons Modernization: Democrats eliminated all funding ($89 million requested) for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) which helps modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile. Absent funding, the performance and reliability of existing weapons may require maintenance of an even larger stockpile in the future.
• IDEA Cuts: The Democrat Omnibus diverts $23 million from IDEA funding to fund a new and untested program for state personnel development.
• Adoption Cuts: Reduced funding for the Adoption Incentives Program from $9.5 million to $4.3 million.
• Farm Service Agencies: Funded at $98 million below the request.
In terms of total cost, this year's earmark total may exceed the total from 2005 when Congress passed nearly $18 billion in earmarks.
Notable earmarks in the 2008 omnibus spending bill include:
$576,000 to manage weeds
Rodent control in Alaska ($113,000)
Olive fruit fly research in France ($213,000)
Hunting and Fishing Museum in Pennsylvania ($200,000)
Louis Armstrong Museum in New York ($150,000)
A bike trail in Minnesota ($700,000)
A river walk in Massachusetts ($1,000,000)
A post office museum in downtown Las Vegas ($200,000); and
The Lincoln Park Zoo in Illinois ($37,000)
The Washington Times reports -- Spending bill shrinks border fence:
Congress last night passed a giant new spending bill that undermines current plans for a U.S.-Mexico border fence, allowing the Homeland Security Department to build a single-tier barrier rather than the two-tier version that has worked in California.
-Snip-
"The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats' unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it's consistent with the pattern of behavior we've seen all year from this majority."
The 2006 Secure Fence Act specifically called for "two layers of reinforced fencing" and listed five specific sections of border where it should be installed. The new spending bill removes the two-tier requirement and the list of locations
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Peter King, called the change “unacceptable.” And Rep. Duncan Hunter said it would be “a significant step backwards.”
This bill is Packed With Bad Policy which are outlined here:
• Immigration and Secure Borders: The omnibus includes new restrictions that will delay and in some cases prevent construction of the full border fence, including: removing all specific locations included in the Secure Fence Act; requiring excessive consultation with numerous government officials prior to construction and requiring an explanation for why each 15-mile segment of fencing is necessary rather than an alternative security measure. Finally, the bill excludes an amendment adopted by the House four different times that would prevent the awarding of any government contract to an entity that does not participate in the E-Verify System, or basic pilot on the internet.
• English in the Workplace: The omnibus excludes Senate-passed and House-supported language that would ensure that employers are not subject to government-funded lawsuits for requiring English in the workplace (e.g. Salvation Army).
• Plan Colombia Cuts: The omnibus cuts $93 Billion in military assistance under Plan Colombia from President’s request, meaning that fixed-wing and helicopter interdiction programs critical to the success of Plan Colombia are likely to be curtailed or stopped entirely. Development aid and counter narcotics work are largely dependent upon the Colombian government’s ability to get manpower and resources into otherwise unreachable areas.
• Assistance to North Korea: The omnibus provides $53 million for energy-related assistance to North Korea without requiring any concessions by the North Koreans on their nuclear activities.
• Cuba Restrictions Weakened: While not expressly authorizing counter-narcotics cooperation with Cuba, the Omnibus does omit the prohibition on such efforts which has been carried in previous years.
• Abstinence Funding: The omnibus repeals the requirement in existing law that 33% of Global HIV/AIDS funding be expended for abstinence-until-marriage programs.
• Restricting U.S. Energy Sources: The omnibus prohibits funding for oil shale commercial regulations. Without these regulations, commercial production of the United States’ 2 trillion barrels of oil shale resources is impossible.
• Reducing Funds for States’ Energy Production: The onshore states’ share of revenues from federal oil and gas production is reduced by 2% from 50% to 48%. This breaks a longstanding 50/50 partnership between the Federal government and states.
And these are the major issues that the Republican leadership, spearheaded by Congressmen Blunts office has managed to get through with only 24 hours of review.
Here are Majority Leader John Boehner's and Sen. Jim DeMint's comments and reaction to the passage of this bill in the house:
House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio called the half-trillion dollar spending bill "troubling and unacceptable" and an example of "misplaced priorities."
"Even though American troops have made dramatic and universally-recognized progress against al Qaeda in Iraq this year, House Democratic leaders have failed to include the resources necessary to complete their mission," Boehner said.
"Our Armed Forces have made remarkable strides under General Petraeus' strategy, and it is essential that Congress provides them all of the resources they need to defeat the terrorist threat. Yet it seems clear that Democrats are planning to pile billions in worthless pork onto the backs of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. To use our men and women in harm's way as pawns in such a transparent scheme is as cynical as it is irresponsible," Boehner said.
The bill will encounter more Republican opposition in the Senate today.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has called the House-passed bill "completely unacceptable" and a "bad deal."
"Instead of passing a clean bill, Democrats have packed it full of controversial policy riders, wasteful earmarks, and budget gimmicks that add billions in additional domestic spending over the President's level," DeMint said.
Even though many lawmakers are rushing to begin their Christmas vacations, "we have a responsibility to stop wasteful Washington spending and protect American taxpayers," DeMint said on Monday.
He said the bill contains over 8,000 earmarks (pork barrel projects), bringing the total for 2008 up to more than 10,000 earmarks compared to just 2,658 in 2007.
DeMint also complained about "spending gimmicks" that he says have been used to hide at least $14-billion in extra domestic spending.
The spending bill goes beyond what is needed to fund government operations. It also includes "unrelated policy items," DeMint complained. "Many of these riders are backed by special interests, such as organized labor, and could not win passage on their own," he said.
In the end, "We can and should do much better" the democrats have backed themselves into a corner where their only two options are to give in as they did here in the House version (that doesn't go far enough in my opinion) or be faced with a "Continuing Resolution" which would be far worse for them politically.
Now is the time to call on Senate Republicans and Conservative Democrats (if there are any left with the stones to brake with their leadership) to stop this legislation from seeing the Presidents desk.
But just in case I'm standing behind, and encouraging all of you to stand behind U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) and Jim DeMint (R-SC), and U.S. Representatives John Shadegg (R-AZ), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and John Campbell (R-CA) in their call for President Bush to keep his commitment to cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half.
I'll leave you with comments from a few of them:
"Once again, Democrats have broken their promises. Democrats promised to cut earmarks in half, but this bill doesn't even come close. In fact, this omnibus could spend more on pork than any appropriations bill in history. Americans want us to end the wasteful and corrupting earmark system that helps special interests at the expense of taxpayers. This bill is earmark business as usual and it deserves to be rejected," Sen. DeMint said.
"No American taxpayer should tolerate Members of Congress spending hard earned tax dollars on pet projects that benefit their cronies or seek to buy themselves back into office. Yet, once again, this bill demonstrates that is exactly what the Congress is doing. Every reform promise has proven hollow. The President should veto this bill and demand an end to self serving Congressional corruption," Rep. Shadegg said.
"Despite claims that they were going to clean up the pork, Democrats produced a massive spending bill that contains nearly 700 pages of 9,000 plus earmarks. Worse, Democrats are forcing members to vote on these earmarks without allowing any time to investigate their merit. Though not all these earmarks will be bad, it is clear that once again the earmarking process has lent itself to the triumph of seniority over merit, secrecy over transparency, and the special interest over the national interest. That alone would be reason enough to veto the bill. The nation would be far better off with a Continuing Resolution than passing a 3,000 page, rammed-down-your-throat spending bill chock full of uninvestigated earmarks," Rep. Hensarling said.
"This omnibus bill still spends too much, includes over 9,000 earmarks, is loaded with accounting gimmicks, and members of Congress were given 24 hours to review all 3,000 pages of it. I urge the President to veto it," Rep. Campbell said.
Cross posted from The Minority Report
posted by Steven Foley
at 4:04 PM
2 Comments:
Earmarks are killing us, but eveyone looks the other way if it's their earmark.
They should be banned NOW, but it won't happen.
As usual, in the dark of night, Congress acts. Once again, the American people get porked!
We need to scream at the top of our lungs until every American knows what has happened!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home