Congressional Spending

[Peregrine]

Read this interesting article on the Washington Post online about current rates of congressional spending and how the initial talk about spending cuts and bringing the deficit down is being lost by increased spending across the board in the new bills that are being passed. Smaller government and less spending is one of my biggest political goals, and it really shakes me to see Republicans going at the trough like this, with GOP control of both houses of Congress and the White House, this is when they should be bringing in some of the limited government ideals of '94! I guess maybe I'm just idealistic to think that if you say you're a fiscal conservative, you actually back it up once you get to Congress. I'd also love to see the President slap down some vetos on these bloated bills that flaunt the fact that the go over the budgetary guidelines he set.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080302218.html

"GOP leaders this week sent House Republicans home for the summer with some political tips, helpfully laid out in 12 "Ideas for August Recess Events." Drop by a military reserve center to highlight increased benefits, the talking points suggest. Visit a bridge or highway that will receive additional funding, or talk up the new prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Having skirted budget restraints and approved nearly $300 billion in new spending and tax breaks before leaving town, Republican lawmakers are now determined to claim full credit for the congressional spending. Far from shying away from their accomplishments, lawmakers are embracing the pork, including graffiti eradication in the Bronx, $277 million in road projects for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and a $200,000 deer-avoidance system in New York.

When the year started, President Bush made spending restraint a mantra, laying out an austere budget that would freeze non-security discretionary spending for five years and setting firm cost limits on transportation and energy bills. But now, as Congress fills in the details of the budget plan, there is little interest in making deep cuts and enormous pressure to spend.

Lawmakers have seen little to fear from a political backlash, some acknowledge, and Bush has yet to wield his veto pen. In fact, the White House has proved itself largely unable to overcome the institutional forces that have long driven lawmakers to ply their parochial interests with cash.

When lawmakers return in the fall, they are almost certain to vote for more tax cuts. They also will vote on a huge new defense spending bill. But proposals for cutting entitlement programs including Medicaid have yet to pick up much support.

"If you look at fiscal conservatism these days, it's in a sorry state," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of only eight House members to vote against the $286.5 billion transportation bill that was passed the day before the recess. "Republicans don't even pretend anymore."

Last week, Congress approved transportation and energy bills that burst through the president's cost limits. Annual spending bills are inching above caps set by Congress itself in its budget plan for 2006. And a massive water projects bill passed by the House last month authorizes spending that would exceed current levels by 173 percent.

"You have to be courageous to not spend money," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), "and we don't have many people who have that courage."

Indeed, Congress has exceeded the allocations or assumptions in its budget resolution four times -- and the year's legislative work is far from complete. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, those budget violations have raised spending through 2010 by roughly $2.2 billion above Congress's limits and tacked $115 billion onto the federal budget deficit through the end of decade, including $33 billion in 2006 alone.

That $33 billion may be tantamount to a rounding error in a $2.6 trillion budget, but it is 10 percent of the $333 billion budget deficit the White House has forecast for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.

"There's a rising level of frustration with the disconnect between where the vast majority of conservatives are in this country and how Congress is behaving," said former representative Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), whose Club for Growth political action committee finances the campaigns of conservative candidates. "There's going to be a wake-up call sooner or later."

For now, Congress and the White House are locked in a pattern of skirting their own constraints. In 2004, Bush demanded that no highway bill exceed $256 billion. Under pressure, he increased his limit to $284 billion this year. Congress responded with a five-year, $286.5 billion measure, but even that figure may be deceptive, Flake warned. The bill actually authorizes expenditures of $295 billion but assumes that, on the last day of the bill's life, Congress will rescind $8.5 billion in unused funds.

Nobody believes that's going to happen," Flake said. "It's frankly a pretty transparent gimmick."

Bush set a firm cost limit of $6.7 billion for tax breaks in the energy bill. Congress then approved breaks worth $11.5 billion over 10 years in an energy bill that will cost $12.3 billion overall. In late June, the White House hastily requested an additional $975 million to finance unanticipated veterans' health care costs for 2005. The Senate responded with $1.5 billion.

So far, Congress has completed only two of 13 annual spending bills, but both -- one primarily financing the Interior Department, the other funding Congress -- busted lawmakers' prescribed spending caps, by $134 million. The House and Senate have passed spending plans for the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education that exceed Bush's request by billions.

And on July 14, the House overwhelmingly approved a major water bill that authorizes projects worth $10.3 billion over 10 years -- $4.4 billion in the first five. In 2000, Congress approved a similar act worth a fraction of that, $1.6 billion over five years.

To fiscal conservatives, it is not just the total cost of the bills but also their content. Covering 1,752 pages, the highway bill is the most expensive public works legislation in U.S. history, complete with 6,376 earmarked projects, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. Kern County, Calif., home of powerful House Ways and Means Chairman Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R), snagged $722 million in projects, or nearly $1,000 per person. Los Angeles County, with clogged highways and 10 million people, will receive barely $60 per resident.

Even before the bill was signed, Kane County, Ill., leaders showed their faith in Speaker Hastert last week by unveiling blueprints for a $120 million bridge, to be financed largely by the federal government.

This week, House GOP leaders sent their legislators 52 pages of talking points, some addressing fiscal discipline, others touting the spending. The final page lays out 12 "Ideas for August Recess Events," none of which trumpets small government.

Sean M. Spicer, a spokesman for House Republican Conference Chairman Deborah Pryce (Ohio), said lawmakers have nothing to be ashamed of. House appropriators have recommended that 101 federal programs be terminated, at a savings of $4.6 billion. And House members have pushed their Senate colleagues to stay pretty close to the budget limits.

The highway bill means jobs, he said. The energy bill addresses a pressing national interest, and no one is going to complain about additional funding for veterans' health care, he added.

"With Congress unable to keep its pocketbook pocketed, it would be nice if President Bush could be counted upon to cast his first vetoes on bills so richly deserving of them," the editors of the conservative National Review wrote yesterday.

But administration officials counter that the bills could have been far worse. An energy bill worked out by House and Senate negotiators in 2003 would have cost more than twice as much as the current version.

"It should be signed," said Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell. "It's the best energy bill that can be passed."

The highway bill initially proposed in the House would have cost $88 billion more than the final version.

"The president's insistence on spending restraint resulted in both the highway and energy bills coming in far less than originally proposed by Congress," said Scott Milburn, spokesman for the White House budget office."

[Crapshoot]

I was reading the Review, and was glad to see them as disgusted as I was by this. The energy bill in particular is the biggest piece of shit ($25 billion to the most profitable industry on the planet, while 40 million of your people don't have healthcare ? ) in quite some time.

[NoMyths]

We're doomed.

[Buccaneer]

I was going to put something together along these lines, esp. expressing my continued outrage against run-away federal spendings. Why is not everyone here outraged as well?? The main questions you have to ask are 1) how does the federal govt get so much money to spend?, 2) do you really know what power (re: blackmails, mandates, federal unaccountability, etc.) that goes along with such spendings bills? and 3) are you so willing to give more power to the federal govt each and every budget cycle? There is no difference between the two parties in regards to spendings, entitlements and power grabs so there have to be a better way in getting voters to recognize the awful mess and danger in allowing the federal govt to grow.

[Dutch]

I am a big opponent to some of the bullshit lobbyist driven federal spending addendum's that get slipped in the backs of legitimate spending bills.

This should really be better policed. At least some of it could be considered fraudulent. Of course, in order for it to be policed/audited, that would cost money too.....so it would have to get actual results in order to work.

[JW]

They are all big spenders, Democrat, Republican, left, right, middle, with a very few exceptions. My own Republican U.S. representative brags about all the federal dollars he has brought to the district, just like his Democratic predecessor did. Their spending priorities are somewhat different, but they are all big spenders. And this will continue until the electorate decides it has gone too far, which means we will continue down this path.

[Buccaneer]

I am afraid that the likely scenario in the near future is increased voter apathy. It is one thing to fund projects that are truly federal (like the interstate highway system or national censuses) but many of the fundings can and should be handled by the states. The advantages of the states having the money to spend are 1) more efficient control and accountability, and 2) it is done without federal mandates and strong-arming (e.g., the federal highway bill will provide its 80% of the funding IF the state changes its laws on something). If they did not have that much money to spend (and the states take up the difference), the federal govt would not wield so much power. This goes for military and nation-building projects as well (in curtailing the amount they spend and the power they wield in foreign nations). This is not anything new, it has been going on since the 1930s and escalated in the 1960s.

[cartman]

A couple of quotes from George Bernard Shaw:

"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."
"Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."

[Buccaneer]

Here's an op-ed that I agree mostly with (with my key points in bold). It's not so much the op-ed on the energy policy but on the type of legislation that I picked up on.


Socket to us

Kitchen-sink legislating makes mess of energy bill

Even a blind squirrel can come up with an acorn once in a while, right? So there are probably at least a few items in Congress’ latest stab at an energy bill we can support. A few. But taken as a package, the 1,725-page monstrosity is a massive disappointment, going light on the regulatory relief that would help clear the way to more energy self-sufficiency and heavy on handouts, subsidies and mandates.

It’s more of the same, in other words, and will do little to boost energy self-reliance or curb high prices. We’re in trouble when the most innovative and daring idea included in the bill is an extension of daylight-saving time. No energy bill would be better than this energy bill, in our view.

Top House and Senate negotiators say it is a bipartisan triumph, calling it “the most comprehensive energy bill in the last 30 to 40 years.” Comprehensive, perhaps. But effective? Probably not. “Everyone agreed to try to find a way to make the bill possible in a very short amount of time,” said Texas Rep. Joe Barton, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee. But when everyone in Washington agrees on a bill, we get nervous. Such unanimity often comes at a price — the buying-off of every potential stakeholder.

It’s already being panned by both sides of the political spectrum. “It’s the Tour de Big Oil,” quipped a representative of one green group. “Exxon is wearing the yellow jersey.” Added Jerry Taylor, a spokesman for the libertarian Cato Institute: “The bill is larded with subsidies, tax preferences and miscellaneous handouts to an energy industry that — with prices this high — are in no need of taxpayer assistance."

The bill will include nearly $12 billion in energy industry tax breaks, royalty relief and other “incentives,” according to reports. That’s nearly double the $6.7 billion in giveaways recommended by the president, but don’t expect a veto. This is a bipartisan spending binge.

The media focus a lot on tax breaks for oil and gas. And these even drew rebukes from the administration. “The oil and gas companies don’t need incentives with oil and gas prices being what they are today,” Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. But the “alternative energy” industry has its snout buried deep in the trough, too. Renewable energy receives $3.158 billion. Alternative vehicles and fuels get $1.259 billion. Efficiency and conservation incentives total $1.369 billion.

None of these inducements to production or conservation would be needed if Washington would place the emphasis on clearing away the regulatory burdens, drilling moratoria, price controls and existing tax giveaways that hold down the energy sector and distort the market. We would prefer that the market, rather than pork-fed politicians and Washington lobbyists, pick energy winners and losers. But this bill moves us in the opposite direction, toward top-down planning and corporate-welfare giveaways.

[snip]

This bill, in short, represents the worst kind of kitchen-sink legislating, resulting in a murky soup of disparate scraps and half-measures that shouldn’t be confused with a coherent energy policy. This is a hold-your-nose-and-vote-“yes” bill with only one purpose — to convince the gullible that Washington cares.


It's not just the energy bill, take a look at the massive highway bill or the fundings for nation-building or spending bills for HHR or many others.

[Galaxy]

Our nation will fall due to the insane spending of our politics, as well as our policies. Someone tell me why a republic is better then a democrary?

[Buccaneer]

Our nation will fall due to the insane spending of our politics, as well as our policies. Someone tell me why a republic is better then a democrary?
Democracy only works best with a small population (think of the town meetings and local courts of colonial New England). Imagine that on a federal scale where EVERYONE would want EVERYTHING ALL OF THE TIME and nothing bad would ever happen in their backyard. Our representatives are not (and have not) been acting within their limited constitutional roles, to a great extent. They do "represent" their constituents in bringing up bills and bringing home the bacon, but they primarily serve the power that is within the Beltway - at the expense of an apathetic populace and for the continuation of keeping that power.

[Dutch]

Our nation will fall due to the insane spending of our politics, as well as our policies. Someone tell me why a republic is better then a democrary?

We are not a Democratic Republic. So we have the best of both worlds. Again, people a lot smarter than us figured this shit out (with scalability) back in the 18th century. Not bad.

[Galaxy]

Democracy only works best with a small population (think of the town meetings and local courts of colonial New England). Imagine that on a federal scale where EVERYONE would want EVERYTHING ALL OF THE TIME and nothing bad would ever happen in their backyard. Our representatives are not (and have not) been acting within their limited constitutional roles, to a great extent. They do "represent" their constituents in bringing up bills and bringing home the bacon, but they primarily serve the power that is within the Beltway - at the expense of an apathetic populace and for the continuation of keeping that power.

My question, is why do we allow it? Seems like many people are frustated, but nothing is done. We have the democract vs. republican war, but what's really the difference between them? They both want to spend, and neither seem willing to make cuts (I though the Reps. were known for this?) and aren't willing to take the bull by the horns to make changes.


What happens to our great nation in 10-20 years? We will "collaspe"? Will the Baby Boomers retiring be the "nail in the coffin", and my generation (I'm 21) be living much less comfortable? Will entrepreneurship still be a financially reward if your success? What happens with China, if they decide to dump the bonds they own in our gov't, and China in general?

[Arles]

It's stories like these that make me wish we had a line-item veto and a president strong enough to use it.

[MrBigglesworth]

"But they had not gone twenty yards when they stopped short. An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials. The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously.Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

[Galaxy]

It's stories like these that make me wish we had a line-item veto and a president strong enough to use it.

What does that mean?

[JW]

"But they had not gone twenty yards when they stopped short. An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials. The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously.Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Have you read about the recent riots in China, common people rioting against the Communist party's close and growing ties to big business? I thought of Animal Farm and that passage when I read about that. From the standpoint of the proletariat, it does look like the party has sold out to the capitalists.

[Galaxy]

Will China, possibly, "fall" to the common people?

[Buccaneer]

What does that mean?
It means a president has the authority to remove any items from a spending bill, if he/she feels that it does not pertain directly to the intent of the bill. But knowing that all of the riders to any spending bills are put in there to ensure one's vote, taking any of them out would mean retribution the next time the president wants something. The only times a president used line-item veto was to remove certain items that were added just for the sole purpose of removing them later. The strong libertarian-minded president would and should easily remove enough items from latest spending bills (Iraqi aid, homeland security, highway and energy) to balance the budget.

[Senator]

It means a president has the authority to remove any items from a spending bill, if he/she.

He/She? Thinking ahead already?

[Buccaneer]

If I recall, the line-item veto authority does not specify gender. :)

[Galaxy]

What if we "outlaw" private donations in election funding?

[Riggins44]

Just more proof that conservatism in any level of government.... is dead.

[MrBigglesworth]

Have you read about the recent riots in China, common people rioting against the Communist party's close and growing ties to big business? I thought of Animal Farm and that passage when I read about that. From the standpoint of the proletariat, it does look like the party has sold out to the capitalists.
I think every revolution is doomed to turn out that way. Those in power in China have seen the benefits of capitalism. Those in power here have seen the benefits of power. When I was younger and a Republican in 1994, the GOP started to come to power on a platform of lower government spending and a clampdown on ethics vioaltions. Just 10 years later, we see them implementing a waste filled budget and being nailed in scandal after scandal. Revolutions are a good thing, I think it is time that we had another one in Congress, and put the Dems in power until they became too fat and drunk off power. Another one in China could do some good, as well.

[Galaxy]

I think every revolution is doomed to turn out that way. Those in power in China have seen the benefits of capitalism. Those in power here have seen the benefits of power. When I was younger and a Republican in 1994, the GOP started to come to power on a platform of lower government spending and a clampdown on ethics vioaltions. Just 10 years later, we see them implementing a waste filled budget and being nailed in scandal after scandal. Revolutions are a good thing, I think it is time that we had another one in Congress, and put the Dems in power until they became too fat and drunk off power. Another one in China could do some good, as well.

I agree. I personally think the Reps are "fat and drunk" right now, and I would like to see the Dems in power and force the Reps to "re-group". What do you see in China happening? What about Hong Kong (Which is Asia's New York or London, the financial center of Asia) and Taiwain?

[ISiddiqui]

Um... guys... the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Line-Item Veto is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It was approved in the mid-90s. Clinton struck pork out of the budget and New York City (who was the beneficiary of some of the pork taken out by Clinton) sued. The Supreme Court ruled (correctly, I think) that the Constitution says the way that a bill is passed is through the Congress and the President can only accept the whole thing or veto the whole thing. Ie, a line-item veto is like a President legislating because Congress approved the entire bill as a whole.

[JW]

I think every revolution is doomed to turn out that way. Those in power in China have seen the benefits of capitalism. Those in power here have seen the benefits of power. When I was younger and a Republican in 1994, the GOP started to come to power on a platform of lower government spending and a clampdown on ethics vioaltions. Just 10 years later, we see them implementing a waste filled budget and being nailed in scandal after scandal. Revolutions are a good thing, I think it is time that we had another one in Congress, and put the Dems in power until they became too fat and drunk off power. Another one in China could do some good, as well.

I wish we could go a third route. As a conservative Democrat, I effectively have no party. I don't want the liberals in power, not even the liberals masquerading as moderates. And I don't want the Republicans in power. Unfortunately there is no one for me right now, since I want a party with a social conscience that is strong on national defense and fiscally conservative. The Democrats used to be there. And the Republicans have not had a social conscience in a long time, perhaps since Lincoln was assassinated. Maybe it is time for a realignment of our political parties. It has happened before in our history.

[cartman]

Um... guys... the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Line-Item Veto is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It was approved in the mid-90s. Clinton struck pork out of the budget and New York City (who was the beneficiary of some of the pork taken out by Clinton) sued. The Supreme Court ruled (correctly, I think) that the Constitution says the way that a bill is passed is through the Congress and the President can only accept the whole thing or veto the whole thing. Ie, a line-item veto is like a President legislating because Congress approved the entire bill as a whole.

This would be a constitutional amendment I'd be in support of.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Um... guys... the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Line-Item Veto is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It was approved in the mid-90s. Clinton struck pork out of the budget and New York City (who was the beneficiary of some of the pork taken out by Clinton) sued. The Supreme Court ruled (correctly, I think) that the Constitution says the way that a bill is passed is through the Congress and the President can only accept the whole thing or veto the whole thing. Ie, a line-item veto is like a President legislating because Congress approved the entire bill as a whole.


It was a questionable decision, IMHO. The Breyer dissent (see Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417) illustrates well that it is not really a separation of powers problem. This is a more of a case of the Congress exercising restraint on itself (similar to the self-imposed pay-as-you-go rule). The line item veto is equivalent to Congress deciding to append to every spending item a provision that the President has the option not to spend the money (which is well within their Constitutional power) or passing every spending item in a separate bill on which the President can exercise his existing veto option (also well within Congress' Constitutional power).

The potential problems arising from the President modifying a bill "approved in whole" by Congress assumes that deal-making in Congress would not change to account for the line-item veto. But that misses the point of having it in the first place; the objective is precisely that, to get rid of the pork-barrel abuse of tax dollars to pass legislation. If you can't pass a bill without bribing Congresspeople with federal money, maybe it's not a very good bill in the first place (the recent Energy and Highway bills stand testament to this).

[sterlingice]

Here's an op-ed that I agree mostly with (with my key points in bold). It's not so much the op-ed on the energy policy but on the type of legislation that I picked up on. I actually find myself on your side for once, Bucc, at least most of the way (tho I disagree that we should get rid of all "regulatory burdens" based on the grounds that there's no economic incentive to companies to play fair with the environment).

As for voter outrage, I just found out about the bill today. But, for the record, here are the only 12 votes against in the Senate and House:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="385"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2" align="left"> <nobr> Nay : 4 Members</nobr></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" width="192"> Jon Kyl (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=203&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-AZ)
John McCain (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=192&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-AZ)
</td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="192"> Judd Gregg (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=375&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-NH)
John Cornyn (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=31770&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-TX)</td></tr></tbody> </table>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="385"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2" align="left"> <nobr> Nay : 8 Members</nobr></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" width="192"> Jeff Flake (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=10928&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-AZ)
John Shadegg (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=247&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-AZ)
Ed Royce (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=662&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-CA)
Walter Jones (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=442&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-NC)
</td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="192"> John Boehner (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=466&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-OH)
Jeb Hensarling (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=129613&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-TX)
William Thornberry (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=566&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-TX)
F. James Sensenbrenner (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=639&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-WI)</td></tr></tbody> </table>

SI

[sooner333]

I actually find myself on your side for once, Bucc, at least most of the way (tho I disagree that we should get rid of all "regulatory burdens" based on the grounds that there's no economic incentive to companies to play fair with the environment).

As for voter outrage, I just found out about the bill today. But, for the record, here are the only 12 votes against in the Senate and House:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="385"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2" align="left"> <nobr> Nay : 4 Members</nobr></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" width="192"> Jon Kyl (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=203&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-AZ)
John McCain (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=192&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-AZ)
</td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="192"> Judd Gregg (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=375&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-NH)
John Cornyn (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=31770&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-TX)</td></tr></tbody> </table>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="385"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2" align="left"> <nobr> Nay : 8 Members</nobr></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" width="192"> Jeff Flake (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=10928&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-AZ)
John Shadegg (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=247&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-AZ)
Ed Royce (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=662&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-CA)
Walter Jones (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=442&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-NC)
</td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="192"> John Boehner (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=466&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-OH)
Jeb Hensarling (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=129613&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-TX)
William Thornberry (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=566&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-TX)
F. James Sensenbrenner (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=639&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-WI)</td></tr></tbody> </table>

SI

I was really surprised to see that my senator (Tom Coburn) did not vote against this. He's voted by himself this year to not renew the homeland security funding as well as re-upping the budget to the Dept. of the Interior and Environmental Protection. He pretty much votes against any funding for just about anything. When he was a representative, he refused to vote for the amendment to the highway funding in exchange for more pork, so they gave it to J.C. Watts' district instead.

[Peregrine]

As for voter outrage, I just found out about the bill today. But, for the record, here are the only 12 votes against in the Senate and House:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="385"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2" align="left"> <nobr> Nay : 4 Members</nobr></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" width="192"> Jon Kyl (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=203&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-AZ)
John McCain (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=192&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-AZ)
</td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="192"> Judd Gregg (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=375&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-NH)
John Cornyn (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=31770&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-TX)</td></tr></tbody> </table>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="385"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2" align="left"> <nobr> Nay : 8 Members</nobr></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" width="192"> Jeff Flake (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=10928&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-AZ)
John Shadegg (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=247&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-AZ)
Ed Royce (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=662&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-CA)
Walter Jones (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=442&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-NC)
</td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="192"> John Boehner (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=466&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-OH)
Jeb Hensarling (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=129613&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-TX)
William Thornberry (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=566&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-TX)
F. James Sensenbrenner (http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=639&congress=1091&lvl=C) (R-WI)</td></tr></tbody> </table>

SI


So, is Arizona the only state still sending real fiscal conservatives to Congress? Pretty funny how that one state stands out.

[sooner333]

So, is Arizona the only state still sending real fiscal conservatives to Congress? Pretty funny how that one state stands out.

They probably got screwed out of funding.

[sterlingice]

Yeah- that's the thing. You wonder if it's the ones who really disagree with it or just got screwed out of their pet projects :(

SI

[Young Drachma]

I was reading the Review, and was glad to see them as disgusted as I was by this. The energy bill in particular is the biggest piece of shit ($25 billion to the most profitable industry on the planet, while 40 million of your people don't have healthcare ? ) in quite some time.

No doubt these latest spending bills are a real boondoggle.