Let the Congressional/Presidential profiteering begin!

[Phokus]

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=637

Of course, pointing this out is unpatriotic and unamerican during a war, and i suppose all the bush loving communist conservatives on this board will commence flaming me.

Congress is profiteering on the war, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- The bill funding the war in Iraq has become jam-packed with so many special-interest favors -- such as a $250 million grant for Southern catfish farmers -- that Congress should be ashamed to vote for it, the Libertarian Party says.

"Unfortunately, wartime looting isn't confined to Iraq," said Geoffrey Neale, the party's national chairman. "Politicians in Washington, DC, are using the fog of late-night legislating to cover their tracks as they funnel money to their political supporters."

As a House-Senate conference committee negotiates the final details of legislation funding the Iraq war, Democrats and Republicans are scrambling to insert dozens of special-interest riders. Though the $80 billion package was stalled by disagreements on Wednesday, it is expected to be completed within days and presented to President Bush.

According to an estimate by Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, the bill contains $20 billion in "wartime pork," or spending that has no connection with the war in Iraq or the battle against terrorism.

"By turning the bill into a spigot for special interests, Congress is profiteering on the war -- and that should anger every American," Neale said.

One especially egregious example: Republican Sen. Thad Cochran inserted language that would funnel $250 million to Southern catfish farmers, many of them in his home state of Mississippi, under the guise of providing drought relief for livestock producers.

Other "war-time pork" includes:

* $69 million to fund a "Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust," named after the former Missouri Congressman.

* A measure intended to prevent a German company, DHL Worldwide Express, from competing with Federal Express and United Parcel Service in the delivery of military cargo. During the 2002 election cycle, UPS gave $1.5 million to Democratic and Republican candidates and $300,000 to the Republican National Committee, Neale noted.

* $98 million for an agricultural research lab in Iowa, and $250 million in other Agriculture Department grants.

* $3.2 billion to extend unemployment benefits for airline employees.

* $11 million for Congressional salaries and expenses.

* A total of $12.4 million for the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office and the U.S. Court of International Trade.

* $8 billion in foreign aid for nations that are supposedly helping the fight against terrorism, including Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Djibouti.

"It's disgraceful that politicians who publicly brag about supporting our troops are privately using this war as a device to enrich special interests and benefit their own re-election campaigns," Neale said.

"The Libertarian Party is challenging Mr. Bush to veto this bill. Maybe that will send a message to the politicians who insist on conducting business as usual in Washington, DC -- while their fellow Americans are dying in Iraq."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

* $3.2 billion to extend unemployment benefits for airline employees.

Gotta love Daschle and his lobbist wife

* $98 million for an agricultural research lab in Iowa, and $250 million in other Agriculture Department grants.

Mr.Harkin....what do you have to say about this Hmm...
----------

Don't get me wrong - the two things I pointed out above may be neccesary but should in NO WAY be slid into a WAR spending bill. The others shouldn't be there either but I happened to read specifically about these 2 and how they were pretty much dead unless they piggy backed on a REAL bill.

CkG

 

[Ornery]

WE enacted the line item veto, even under Clinton's reign. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't like it. WE tried to do away with pork, now it's your turn. What's your plan?

 

[etech]

sigh,

Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
The Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust is a food reserve administered under the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture. This reserve is available to meet emergency humanitarian food needs in developing countries, allowing the United States to respond to unanticipated food crises with U.S. commodities. Up to 4 million metric tons of U.S. wheat, corn, sorghum, and rice can be kept in reserve. On Dec. 31, 2002, the reserve held about 2.0 million metric tons of wheat.

The reserve was originally authorized by the Agricultural Trade Act of 1980 as the Food Security Wheat Reserve. Subsequent legislation broadened the number of commodities that can be held in the reserve and, in 1998, it was renamed the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. Most recently, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 reauthorized the Emerson Trust through 2007.
...
March 20, 2003: Release of 200,000 metric tons, with an additional 400,000 metric tons as needed, is authorized for use in P.L. 480, Title II, for unanticipated emergency needs in Iraq. If not all needed in Iraq, commodities could be used in Title II for emergency needs in Africa.

 

[etech]

U.S. Congress Thanks Polish Troops for their Efforts to Liberate Iraq

Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, expressed lawmakers' gratitude to American, British, Australian and Polish troops on April 10, 2003, for their role in helping liberate Iraq. Mr. Hastert and other Members of Congress spoke at a solemn ceremony in Statuary Hall at the U.S. Capitol.
Ambassador of the Republic of Poland Przemyslaw Grudzinski, along with his colleges from Great Britain and Australia, attended the event. The audience gave them a standing ovation with cheers of "Bravo! Bravo!" Ambassador Grudzinski has said that Poland's role in Iraq won't end with the conclusion of military action.

Two hundred Polish soldiers are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
___________-

Hungary has allowed the US army to use a military base in southern Hungary to train Iraqi exiles as military support staff.

___________

Djibouti has become strategic during the war on terrorism, because of its proximity to Yemen, a country where the U.S. suspects wanted al-Qaeda leaders may be hiding. It was from Djibouti that the CIA launched a remote-control Predator aircraft and its missile attack on claimed terrorists in Yemen, in 2002.

Djibouti is a former French colony which gained independence in 1977. Under a defence agreement, France still maintains a military presence.

Estimated military presence in Djibouti of Mar. 1, 2003:

a new headquarters called the Combined Joint Task Force ? Horn of Africa has been established with units from the 2nd Marine Division based in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. This force is directed more toward the war on terror, and operations in Yemen, than at Iraq.
USS Mount Whitney, a command ship, has now arrived in the area to operate as the headquarters in advance of building a land-based headquarters probably located in Djibouti City.
there are about 900 U.S. troops, including special operations forces, located at Camp Le Monier, located near Ambouli Airport in Djibouti City. Special operations aircraft and a few helicopters are also at the base.
two remote-control Predator aircraft owned by the CIA operate from the air base.
there is a French garrison located in Djibouti City.

Position on Iraq:

In January, 2003, Djibouti President Ismael Omar Guelleh met with U.S. president Bush in Washington. A White House official says the U.S. will open an office of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Djibouti. Djibouti has been a prominent U.S. ally in the war on terrorism; special forces based there might play tactical roles on a war in Iraq.
___________


I'll agree that the catfish farm is pushing the limits. The line item veto for spending bills is needed.

 

[BarneyFife]

Can someone please tell me the difference between Democrats and Republicans because they look like the same thing to me.

 

[Ornery]

Democrats want to line the pockets of their welfare constituents. GOP wants to line the pockets of their business owning constituents. Difference is, the GOP constituents create jobs.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Democrats want to line the pockets of their welfare constituents. GOP wants to line the pockets of their business owning constituents. Difference is, the GOP constituents create jobs.

With our taxpayer money. Not much different from welfare, especially now that work requirements attached to most welfare programs.

 

[Ornery]

"...work requirements attached to most welfare programs"

You like that, eh? You're welcome!

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Can someone please tell me the difference between Democrats and Republicans because they look like the same thing to me.

I'm right there with ya bro, askin' the same question.

In 2000, both Reps and Dems sounded the same and put on the same show at their conventions. [Though I will say how much Republicans are HYPOCRITES for putting the glass ceiling on minorities everywhere except at events that showcase themselves such as the Conventions.]

Election 2000 was so so so close because both sides sounded the same.

The Libertarian Party is sure lookin' pretty damn good right now, amidst all this 2-party confusion.

 

[Ornery]

I bet your Libertarian candidate more closely matches the GOP platform than the Democrat one. Why not make your choices on the issues in the AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SELECTOR and see if I'm not right. Some of their answers to the questions were vague, except for Bush, so it was hard for me to place them. But if you answer the questions yourself in the selector, you'll see which ideologies more closely match up in the end. Take a look below and just see who is usually the odd man out:

• 
  1. ABORTION ISSUES: Which views on the issue of abortion would you prefer your candidate advocate?
  • 
    "Pro-Choice" Harry Browne, Gore
    Neither
    "Pro-Life" Bush
  2. MINORITY ISSUES: Would you prefer your candidate support or oppose such legislation as affirmative action?
  • 
    Oppose Bush, Harry Browne
    Neither
    Support Gore
  3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE: Would you prefer your candidate support or oppose campaign finance reform?
  • 
    Oppose Reform (Lift restrictions on contributions) Bush, Harry Browne, Gore
    Neither
    Support Reform (Abolish "softmoney" contributions, etc.)
  4. CRIME: Some candidates have outlined their approach to minimizing crime. Which approach do you prefer your candidate stress?
  • 
    Support "get tough" approach,e.g. longer prison sentences Bush
    Neither Harry Browne
    Support preventive approach, e.g. educational & recreational programs Gore
  5. DEFENSE SPENDING: Would you prefer your candidate advocate an increase or decrease in the defense spending budget?
  • 
    Support increase Bush, Harry Browne, Gore
    Neither
    Support decrease
  6. DRUG POLICY: Some presidential candidates support an increase in drug crime prosecution and penalties while some favor a decriminalization or complete legalization of what are currently drug crimes. What stance would you like your candidate to adopt?
  • 
    Support increased prosecution and penalties Bush, Gore
    Neither
    Support decriminalization Harry Browne
  7. GAY RIGHTS: Some candidates believe that sexual orientation is an unchangeable characteristic and support across the board equality under civil law for gay and lesbian Americans. On the other end of the spectrum, some believe that gay relationships are a destructive assault on the heterosexual, marriage-based family. What policies would you like your candidate to favor?
  • 
    Support legislative equality for homosexuals. Gore
    Neither
    Oppose special legislationconcerning homosexuality. Bush, Harry Browne
  8. EDUCATION: Some presidential candidates support school choice. Others see it as a separation of church and state issue. What position would you like your candidate to support?
  • 
    Favor School Choice Bush
    Neither Harry Browne
    Support tax dollars for public schools only Gore
  9. ENVIRONMENT: Which position regarding the environment would your ideal candidate advocate?
  • 
    Support the environment only after considering market and private property concerns. Bush
    Neither Harry Browne
    Support environmental protection legislation Gore
  10. EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM: Some presidential candidates favor the teaching of Creationism in public schools along evolution which is currently taught in science classes. What's your opinion?
  • 
    Support the situation as it is now: evolution only Gore
    Neither Harry Browne
    Support legislation including the teaching of Creationism Bush
  11. FOREIGN POLICY: Would you prefer your candidate embrace an non-interventionist or interventionist approach to foreign policy?
  • 
    Support non-interventionist Harry Browne
    Neither
    Support interventionist Bush, Gore
  12. GUN CONTROL: Would you prefer your candidate oppose or support gun control legislation?
  • 
    Oppose Bush, Harry Browne
    Neither
    Support Gore
  13. HEALTH CARE: Would you prefer your candidate support increased federal involvement in health care? Or would you prefer health care be an area outside governmental control?
  • 
    Support health care as primarily the responsibility of the individual Bush, Harry Browne
    Neither
    Support health care as primarily the responsibility of the government Gore
  14. MORAL ISSUES: Would you prefer your candidate favor federal, state and/or local legislation supporting "traditional values" such as advocating prayer in public schools, promoting teen-age sexual abstinence and restricting access to Internet pornography?
  • 
    Support legislation of "traditional values". Bush
    Neither Harry Browne
    Oppose legislation of "traditional values". Gore
  15. SOCIAL SECURITY: Would you prefer your candidate promise to preserve or reform (including dismantle) Social Security?
  • 
    Support reforming Bush, Harry Browne
    Neither
    Support preserving Gore
  16. TAX POLICY: Various candidates have promised to overhaul the federal income tax codes. They differ in how extreme the proposed changes would be.
  • 
    Support retaining current system Gore
    Neither
    Support reforming or abolishing Bush, Harry Browne
  17. TRADE ISSUES: Would you prefer your candidate be an advocate of free trade or trade controls like tariffs and embargoes?
  • 
    Support free-trade Bush, Harry Browne, Gore
    Neither
    Support trade controls

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"...work requirements attached to most welfare programs"

You like that, eh? You're welcome!

I would rather the taxpayer money go to some schmuck on workfare than some republican who is going to pocket half of it, and then bitch about paying too much tax on it.

 

[MadRat]

The far right excludes minorities. Rid us of the far right and Republicans look fairly decent.

 

[Ornery]

I'd rather it went to institutons that create jobs, perform research or construct something, than a bunch of crack addicts squirting out babies.

 

[Judgement]

Of course, pointing this out is unpatriotic and unamerican during a war, and i suppose all the bush loving communist conservatives on this board will commence flaming me.

If you think this is a problem limited in scope to only Bush and republicans you are sadly mistaken. Both republicans and democrats have been doing this for years and years to keep themselves in favor of the real people who have a voice in washington: wealthy corporations.

 

[SuperTool]

Yes, Southern catfish farmers are quite an institution.
I don't see why anyone is entitled to non-war related pork under Iraq war bill.
It's republicans like you who complain about high taxes, but don't stand up to the pork when it counts.

 

[Ornery]

I told you, WE enacted the Line Item Veto. What could be more proactive than that? You tell me how to override the Supreme Court and we'll have a go at it!

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I told you, WE enacted the Line Item Veto. What could be more proactive than that? You tell me how to override the Supreme Court and we'll have a go at it!

I think you know the answer.
It's called a Constitutional Ammendment.
But not having a line item veto is not an excuse for the president to not veto a bill that is full of pork, until the Congress gives him a bill that he can sign. How many bills has Bush vetoed? He is not interested in keeping the pork down, because a lot of it is going to GOP districts and getting republicans elected. Unless the congress is overriding his vetoes, the fiscal buck stops with Dubya.

 

[SuperTool]

Also, I don't believe the line item veto should be constitutional. It's not the president's job to rewrite Bills by vetoing individual items. It is his job to veto bills that are agregious examples of pork until Congress gives him a version that he can sign off on without signing off on a bunch of pork.

 

[Ornery]

"He is not interested in keeping the pork down, because a lot of it is going to GOP districts and getting republicans elected."

That bastard! :Q

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ornery
Democrats want to line the pockets of their welfare constituents. GOP wants to line the pockets of their business owning constituents. Difference is, the GOP constituents create jobs.

With our taxpayer money. Not much different from welfare, especially now that work requirements attached to most welfare programs.

Assuming this thread belongs in this forum I think we could have a lengthy discussion.

Using the example above without agreement to its validity I would offer: If the low wage earner earned double his current rate of pay the creater of jobs would be bankrupt. And the social side of our thinking mandates fair treatment.

To be continued...

 

[Ornery]

If the low wage earner earned double his current rate of pay the creater of jobs would net twice the profit!


"...the social side of our thinking mandates fair treatment."

Speak for yourself. Last time I heard, we're capitalists in this country!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ornery
If the low wage earner earned double his current rate of pay the creater of jobs would net twice the profit!


"...the social side of our thinking mandates fair treatment."

Speak for yourself. Last time I heard, we're capitalists in this country!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Ornery
If the low wage earner earned double his current rate of pay the creater of jobs would net twice the profit!


"...the social side of our thinking mandates fair treatment."

Speak for yourself. Last time I heard, we're capitalists in this country!

The most expensive part of any entity is labor. If for instance, you increase the min wage to 8$ per hour the increase and the associated burden go directly to the bottom line (not counting inventoried WIP and Finished goods etc.) It takes an enormous balancing act to get the taxing efforts and social legislation in balance. An increase as I mentioned would remove from the economy a significant quantity of players (business) stiffle new entries and hence lower competition etc.

Capitalism simply means Private ownership acting for a profit. The social side of our country is, in part, created by the nature of our economic side. The ability of folks to earn the big bucks is mostly but, in part, related to their own drive and circumstances.

The issue becomes one of keeping labor costs low and try to augment with tax cuts, credits and etc. to keep the business climate alive. If it gets out of balance everyone loses.

Edit I hit the button to fast.
Productivity issues inferred by "earned twice..." are not realizable and therefore moot in most cases... just the dollar increase with no productivity plus.

 

[Ornery]

The social side of our country is, in part, created by...

...things like the minimum wage laws. Ugh! :frown: