DiscussMormonism.com

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s $60.4 billion request for Hurricane Sandy relief has morphed into a huge Christmas stocking of goodies for federal agencies and even the state of Alaska, The Post has learned.

The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC.

U.S. JUDGE RULES LINE ITEM VETO ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In a major blow to President Clinton and Republican leaders of Congress, a Federal judge ruled today that it was unconstitutional for the President to veto individual items in spending and tax legislation, rather than signing or rejecting the entire bill.

cinepro wrote:Is it appropriate to load up a disaster relief bill with non-disaster related spending that might (and should) cause some to delay its passage?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/l ... CKwbheEV0N

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s $60.4 billion request for Hurricane Sandy relief has morphed into a huge Christmas stocking of goodies for federal agencies and even the state of Alaska, The Post has learned.

The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC.

Quasimodo wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/13/us/us-judge-rules-line-item-veto-act-unconstitutional.html

U.S. JUDGE RULES LINE ITEM VETO ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In a major blow to President Clinton and Republican leaders of Congress, a Federal judge ruled today that it was unconstitutional for the President to veto individual items in spending and tax legislation, rather than signing or rejecting the entire bill.

madeleine wrote:This is huge.

Quasimodo wrote:

madeleine wrote:This is huge.

Well, it was huge. It happened in 1998 (I should have been more clear). No matter what party a person belongs to, a line item veto is a good idea if you want to stop pork barrel spending.

Is it appropriate to load up a disaster relief bill with non-disaster related spending that might (and should) cause some to delay its passage?

Kevin Graham wrote:It is 100% appropriate. You seem to lack understanding in how stimulus money works. All that money you call "pork barrel" (which it isn't!) is going right back into the economy, which stimulates it and the jobs required to produce the goods and services being purchased.

Kevin Graham wrote:

Is it appropriate to load up a disaster relief bill with non-disaster related spending that might (and should) cause some to delay its passage?

It is 100% appropriate. You seem to lack understanding in how stimulus money works. All that money you call "pork barrel" (which it isn't!) is going right back into the economy, which stimulates it and the jobs required to produce the goods and services being purchased.