Who will win: Bush or Kerry?

[jewscout]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

I thought Congress was the branch of the government responsible for spending money.

very true spinks...but who's askin for it.

brings up another point too though...why is a republican congress spending this much money?

[michel]

Well, if you ask,

March 2, 2005

Republicans Criticize $81.9 Billion Spending Bill

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
ASHINGTON, March 1 - The White House request for $81.9 billion in emergency money, mostly to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is drawing increasing criticism from leading Republicans on Capitol Hill, who say it includes too much extraneous spending and should be pared back.

Ordinarily, a bill to pay for wartime operations would be sacrosanct among members of the president's party. But the so-called supplemental spending bill also includes other expenditures, like relief for tsunami-stricken nations and aid to the Palestinian Authority.

The bill was the main point of contention Tuesday at a Senate Budget Committee hearing, where several Republicans sharply questioned Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, about why the measure included money for items that, they said, are not directly related to military operations.

Mr. Wolfowitz urged Congress to approve the package, saying it was made up of "one-time expenditures."

But in interviews after the hearing, some of the Senate's most prominent Republicans said they had concerns about the measure.

"I think it's too much money, and too much of it is not urgent or supplemental," said Senator Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican.

Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, argued that the administration was effectively circumventing Congressional oversight by using the emergency bill to finance an array of programs.

"It's one of the high-water marks in this problem," he said.

Another Republican on the panel, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said he thought Congress ought to "reduce or not fund some of the items."

The request includes about $75 billion for military activities, mostly for the Army. The nonmilitary money requested includes $950 million to help areas affected by the tsunami in December and $5.6 billion for "international affairs," including humanitarian aid to Sudan.

The supplemental request has also drawn complaints from Democrats, who say war spending should be included in the Defense Department budget. The White House left the item out of the budget, saying the expenses are impossible to predict.

"Frankly, it's not acceptable, I think, to come here and say, 'Well, it's hard to predict,' " Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the senior Democrat on the budget panel, told Mr. Wolfowitz. "You know, all the budgets are hard to predict."

ASHINGTON, March 1 - The White House request for $81.9 billion in emergency money, mostly to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is drawing increasing criticism from leading Republicans on Capitol Hill, who say it includes too much extraneous spending and should be pared back.

Ordinarily, a bill to pay for wartime operations would be sacrosanct among members of the president's party. But the so-called supplemental spending bill also includes other expenditures, like relief for tsunami-stricken nations and aid to the Palestinian Authority.

The bill was the main point of contention Tuesday at a Senate Budget Committee hearing, where several Republicans sharply questioned Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, about why the measure included money for items that, they said, are not directly related to military operations.

Mr. Wolfowitz urged Congress to approve the package, saying it was made up of "one-time expenditures."

But in interviews after the hearing, some of the Senate's most prominent Republicans said they had concerns about the measure.

"I think it's too much money, and too much of it is not urgent or supplemental," said Senator Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican.

Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, argued that the administration was effectively circumventing Congressional oversight by using the emergency bill to finance an array of programs.

"It's one of the high-water marks in this problem," he said.

Another Republican on the panel, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said he thought Congress ought to "reduce or not fund some of the items."

The request includes about $75 billion for military activities, mostly for the Army. The nonmilitary money requested includes $950 million to help areas affected by the tsunami in December and $5.6 billion for "international affairs," including humanitarian aid to Sudan.

The supplemental request has also drawn complaints from Democrats, who say war spending should be included in the Defense Department budget. The White House left the item out of the budget, saying the expenses are impossible to predict.

"Frankly, it's not acceptable, I think, to come here and say, 'Well, it's hard to predict,' " Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the senior Democrat on the budget panel, told Mr. Wolfowitz. "You know, all the budgets are hard to predict."



http://www.theocracywatch.org/cz_spe...es_mar2_05.htm

[CaptainXeroid]

You should have waited 7 more days before dusting off this thread...then it would have been exactly a year old.

Just to punctuate what Mr. Spinkles & michel alluded to, at one time, the Republican Party stood for fiscal responsibility, but these days they seem to have abandoned many of us in favor of the Conservative Christian agenda. I don't blame them, because the American public has shifted right evidenced by GWB's re-election despite his less than stellar first term. The 2006 'mid-term' elections should prove most interesting to see if people continue shifting right or slide back toward the center.