Wouldn't it have gone better if Dems had left out other items except for war funds?

[HardWorkingDem]

What are other peoples' opinions on this?

I understand the importance of several of these huge budget add-ons (aid for Katrina and the like), but wouldn't it have been wiser for the dems to just do bills with Iraq money, time lines and troop withdrawals?

Or am I missing something?

[NMDemDist2]

1. more likely to get the votes for Katrina from the Repukes by adding it

to a military spending bill. also lots of that stuff was left over from the last congress, don't buy the BS talking points

[Nite Owl]

2. This could be what they 'give'

back in a compromise with the WH. He is complaining about the 'pork'? So they strike it out and give it back to him to sign. They could say that they met him half way. Benchmarks, they stay. In any deal you ask for more than you expect to get, you intend to give it up. This makes everyone feel that they won something. It would make them seem reasonable while making * sound petulant wanting his way on every point.

[sandnsea]

3. It's an Emergency Supplemental, not war funds

This is what funds any kind of emergency and always has. The Supplemental provided Tsunami funds and the first Katrina funds. It's the way the system works.

They're lying to you when they tell you otherwise. Why do we always believe them???

Here's the 2005 supplemental, scroll down and find emergency funding not related to war which is exactly what the bill would be if we weren't at war.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-1268

[Lasher]

4. Very good point there sandnsea

I'll remember that.

[Ninja Jordan]

10. Yes, peanut and spinach farmers need help NOW

;-)

[sandnsea]

23. That's not the measure

The measure is whether the help needed is the result of an emergency, unforeseen events.

And if you were a spinach grower who couldn't sell their product and consequently had no money, I suspect you'd have a different view of emergency.

[w4rma]

5. No. They should be putting more in it.

And if Bush vetos his money for his idiotic war, then it's not Democrats who are cutting the funds for it. That bill is likely the best deal he'll ever get, again.

[radfringe]

6. Until the rules of creating legislation are changed

all bills are stuffed with "pork"

I have always contended that amendments to a bill should be limited to items directly related to the original intent of the bill.

tacking on Pork to bills is a way to get pork that would otherwise be denied because presidential signing or veto is an all or nothing proposition.

This usually brings up the issue of a "line item veto" - such an idea has its merits, but it also has greater potential for abuse.

A better approach would be to limit legislation to the original intent. As you pointed out - if a bill has to do with Iraq funding, only those items directly related to Iraq funding should be in the bill.

A bill related to aiding disaster victims/areas - should contain just items related to that disaster.

If congress wants pork or pet project funding - then there should be a seperate bill for that type of funding.

[flobee1]

7. all bills are stuffed with "pork"

Thats what I screamed at the tv when * first mentioned it

No diffrent than any other bill, but he decides to make an issue of it now?

[a kennedy]

12. and it's only since the Dems have obtained the power that "pork" is

on every MSM lips. Give me a break. :eyes:

[Igel]

24. Oddly, however,

it's precisely now that dems find that pork can be such a savory dish.

It's bad when they do it; it's unconscionable, an abuse of power, gaming the system and manipulating the process.

It's good when they do it; it's a downright virtue, proper use of budgetary power, using the system as it was meant to be used.

I say it's bad all the time. I'd rather see 300 spending bills than one bill with spending for 300+ unrelated things.

[rock]

8. Let's assume that is so

How do you propose to achieve that? Remember, they're a bunch of politicians.

[dogman]

9. The real problem is a lack of message.

They need to point out that this is a huge expenditure for the war and they are not going to neglect the needs at home. The gop has ignored domestic needs since this administration has come to office and it is customary to combine items in a bill to keep things moving. They need to differentiate the spending in this bill compared to the pure pork in the gop bills. They do have a disadvantage in the corporate ownership of the media and the pile on by rw pundits. There is also a lack of coherence in those chosen to represent the Democratic views.

[Vinca]

11. They had to lure some votes.

Besides, I wouldn't call funding for Katrina, veterans, etc. pork. It's stuff that's been neglected for years by the previous, greedy, I've-got-mine-to-hell-with-you regime.

[peaches2003]

13. A talking point

It gives Bush a talking point other than refusing a timeline for the war as a reason to veto. The public is very 'anti-pork', even though they want it for themselves, and this gives Bush an excuse to veto that people will understand.

[frogcycle]

14. anyone who "understands" that he vetoes

the emergency supplemental funding bill causing disruption in funding for his war because it included 25M here and there for disaster relief - or for that matter a 'bridge to nowhere', if they had wanted to include Ted Stevens favorite "pork" - is smoking funny stuff.

this argument is a non-starter. There has not been a "clean" spending bill since - heck, probabaly ever.

Even if one wants to reform the practice, picking this bill on which to take a stand is disingenuous beyond description.

There is one and only one reason he objects to it, and everyone knows that.

Chuck Hagel needs a LOT more air time.

In any "fair and balanced" world Hagel would be on every talk show imagineable explaining patiently what a good bill this is for supporting the damned war.

[frogcycle]

15. i am so frigging sick

of the very IDEA of "talking points"

damned sound bites. repeat catchphrases. Sesame Street education.

the masses who respond to that shit are salivating dogs hearing bells.

[peaches2003]

16. But it's reality

and Bush will use whatever he can as an excuse for vetoing that gives him another reason other than continuing the war.

[frogcycle]

20. unreality is reality

i need to add that to "war is peace" and "up is down"

[Toots]

17. That is their fall back strategy

They will drop those items after the veto because those are what the GOP is using as justification to veto this appropriation bill. After those items like minimum wage etc. are dropped they will leave the time-table for re-deployment of troops and force Bush* to veto once again especially after the Administration has been putting so much effort into the "surge is working" propaganda. If it is working there should be absolutely no problem with the non-binding part about withdrawing troops in a year and a half. They have a whole eighteen months to kill some more Arabs and by then the Bush* Cabal will be headed for the door and would have won their battle to keep their war on. Everybody wins but in reality nobody wins and more people die..

[HardWorkingDem]

21. This is part of what I was wondering....

If it was a Dem strategy to put this stuff in and then take it out later.

But let me be clear: I'm not saying the funding for disaster and Katrina problems isn't important, because it is. But this is politics here and I wouldn't be surprised if the spinach part was put in by a Rethuglican.

[Joe Fields]

18. have you ever seen or heard of a funding bill that didn't have earmarks?

[SteppingRazor]

19. Would the Dems have had the votes without those items?

Probably not.

[ripple]

25. Bingo!

There is no way it would have passed without the pork.

[Norquist Nemesis]

22. Ah, well, think of those things as negotiation chits

It was a smart move, IMO. As Rove sends out the blast emails spotlighting the 'pork', they start coming off until it's down to the funding...and one of two dates. Of the two dates, one is binding the other is not. Whether it's the sooner or the later date, I'm betting the non-binding is the key. Through Conference and off to the Prez.

Next...The President calls another press conference surrounded by all of the GOP proclaiming he's vetoed. Blames Democrats. BUT, he can't claim it was because of the pork! And he certainly won't be able to while about 'random dates'...it's non-binding. It was only a few short weeks ago that Bush was completely unconcerned about non-binding resolutions from Congress. Is he all of a sudden going to pick a fight over a non-binding date to reject that funding he says he needs?

Democrats need to hold firm and when Bush vetoes it call him out on it. They gave him everything he said he needed in order to be successful and HE alone made the cut off the funds to the troops.