The President and congress have been working on getting an $85 Billion dollar war spending bill passed. On Thursday the House approved the bill but added almost $12 Billion dollars in spending above and beyond what Obama asked for.
I understand what the first 85 Billion is for. Increased numbers of troops in Afghanistan requires money for transportation, supplies, and infrastructure to maintain them. Money is also needed to continue operations in Iraq.
So what does this extra 12 Billion get us?
First of all, they added an extra $2.2 Billion in foreign aid, above and beyond that of what the president asked for. Why is congresses added more money to foreign aid than what the president wants? I don’t see any reason for it.
Second, $4 Billion of it goes to the purchase of military equipment, including the C-17 cargo planes that the Pentagon has stated it doesn’t need. Hello? If they don’t need them, why are we buying them?
This is the part that gets me. What gives congress the authority to tell the Pentagon that they have to buy these planes even if the Pentagon says they don’t need them? I understand that congress sets the budget, but shouldn’t it be the Pentagon that decides how the money is spent? I can even understand congress saying ok, here is this program for buying cargo planes, you have this much cash to do it with. Then if the Pentagon says they don’t need them or buys what they need, the left over money goes back to congress for other projects. It just doesn’t make sense that congress has the ability to say to the military, or any other government organization, that you have to buy this or that regardless of if you need it or not, that’s just wasteful. Why are we letting congress micromanage the checkbook?
Cross-posted on Vast Variety
Like what you see? RSS FEED | TWITTER FEED | HOME
20 May 2009
Micro-managing the Tax Payer Checkbook
This space is designed for thoughtful commentary on politics and media (and whatever else comes to mind). The Pajama Pundit welcomes people from all political stripes to voice opinions freely and without fear of mean-spirited attacks. He does however expect intelligent discussion -- and some understanding of proper grammar usage.
For a more detailed look at commenting, please review our Comment Policy.
Please refrain from personal attacks on authors or other users. Back up your argument with documentation (links to elsewhere on the web). This is a big sandbox -- so please play nicely with one another.
NOTE: For all of the HTML nerds out there (like me), anchor, strong (bold), em (italic) and blockquote tags work within the comment form.
The Pajama Pundit - Founder/Editor
7 comments:
A-fucking-men. I hate this Congress more than you can imagine.
I'm sure this isn't something that is just new to this congress. I'm pretty certain you know that Fury.
Let me clarify.
I hate same party government control, which makes me really hate Congress more than you can imagine when they do stupid shit like this.
I agree, Fury. I have long held that gridlock is a good thing in government.
It's both good and bad really. Good when it keeps crap like this from happening, bad when it keeps them from doing anything.
IMO, the less the government does, the better off we are. The majority of the time, they "do" things just so they can tell their voters how much they bring home - not because it helps the country. Most likely, we are buying the C-17s because they are made in the district of someone on the appropriations committee. That crap happens on every bill, so the fewer the bills, the better.
I'm with cubbie on this one. I'd take Gridlock 99.99% of the time and if it'll TRULY help our great nation, I'm sure both parties would agree on passing it.
They're more out to hurt each other rather than the American People.
Post a Comment