I want to get out in front of this charade...

[Chadman]

I think it's deplorable that the conservatives have attached so many riders to the recently passed defense bill. They deftly tied support of funding for Katrina victims, funding for home heating oil assistance, and support for the troops to drilling in Anwar. I believe there were other items also attached as a part of these legislations along with the broadcasted cuts in social programs, long a staple of conservatives.

Although this is far from the first time this has been done, I have rarely seen the political process so flagrantly manipulated.

If anyone disagrees with any of the individual pieces of legislation to the point of voting against it, they can use that against them mercilessly in the press in the future. Like, (insert liberal here) voted against this (because of one thing) and he is against the troops, against Katrina victims, against whatever.

I think this should be stopped. Both sides. Keep the legislation, that has nothing to do with the other piece of legislation AT ALL, separate. I think we should pressure all of our elected officials to change this process. And not just accept it and gripe about it any time our party is not in power. I know I plan to. The conservatives just pushed me over the edge with this outlandish political push.

 

[dawgball]

I completely agree that our system is seriously flawed in this respect (along with many others). Unfortunately this is just how it's done.

What would be the process for something like this to change?

 

[redsfann]

Could a line-item veto be what is need here? Does the Prez have that power? I don't remember if that was inacted or not? Didn't Reagan argue that the office of the Prez needed this ability?

With a line-item veto, the Prez could say he likes this bill--intends to sign the bill-- BUT this, this and this have no connection to the bill--so I will 'line-item veto' them right out of the way. Would that then keep the bills on topic?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I like to see the specifics of what your discussing--would you mind putting them up.

 

[Nosigar]

The defense budget included Katrina relief funds as well as ANWR drilling. Among other things.

Politics as usual.

 

[Palehose]

Absolute BS and is ruining the country !

 

[Chadman]

DTB, are you asking me about the specifics of what I am talking about? Or someone else?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Was just wondering what parts of these benefits are being cut.
I can find much about it. Did see one portion where person was going was telling that it would effect nursing home benefits--however found out later it was reflected on those that are wealthy giving assetts away to heirs qualify for medicaid. So I was wondering if any other surprises.
My biggest bitch on GW was the drug benefit added to Medicare. However in reading editorials appears many of the liberals that disapproved with increased benefits on Medicare are the same that disapprove of cuts and equally confusing you have admin that increases benefits -then turn around and cuts them.
Gets confusing regardless which side of fence your on.
I'm definately for drilling in Anwar--and confused they want to rebuild levee to protect against max catagory 3 on city below sea level.Would make more sense with the price and scarcity of gulf coast property--that they let privite enterprise develop it--should be tons sitting back waiting and believe they would build it right.

 

[Chadman]

Gotcha. Good questions and thoughts, all. I think at this point in our history, that drilling in ANWAR is probably the more common sense thing to do. I am all for protecting the environment, but from what I've seen the benefits might outweigh the possible negative effects. I am very bitter towards this administration - Cheney in particular - about energy legislation and pollution controls. Talk about the wolves building and patrolling the hen house. I'm also having a very difficult time with the levee proposal, although Bush has certainly jumped on this as a mantra publicly. Don't know what to make of that. After cutting funding for those programs over the past few years, now he is for gazillions of dollars to go right to the same thing, in a way? I dunno. I am really conflicted about money going down there. I think the democratically-controlled legislation and program directors down there are probably not the best stewards of a ton of money, if history shows us anything. Nobody should get off the hook for what has happened down there. Good money after bad rarely is a smart thing to do.

 

[djv]

Drill OK but lets make sure other things are also put in to law that help as much or more. And for DAM sure all that oil comes to us here in America. None of this 30% for Japan and 20% to Korea BS that goes on know with Alaska oil. How many here understand that oil from there right now does not all come here.