Yet another example of Democratic gaming on national security bills

[MODU]

Wanting to be the "fiscally conservative" democrats that they claim to be, they are trying to hide $10 Billion in riders on the next war-funding bill.

"Democrats aim to tack pet spending projects onto Iraq bill"

While Democrats try to restrict how President Bush can spend the $100 billion he wants for Iraq, they also hope to load his measure up with $10 billion in add-ons -- from aid for Great Plains farmers to help for children lacking health insurance and better levees in New Orleans.

The expected battle with the White House over the add-ons is getting far less attention than debate over Iraq, but it could reveal a lot about how much Democrats will be able to rewrite the president's budget later this year.

Bush has yet to veto a spending bill, and Democrats are gambling he'll sign the Iraq measure despite objections to spending he didn't seek. Republicans, meanwhile, would be reluctant to vote against the package since it contains funds for U.S. troops overseas.

(Cont...)

[Gabu]

Pretty much politics as usual.  Attach unrelated stuff to important bills and then force the other guys to choose between allowing the unrelated stuff or be forced to explain why they voted against the important part.  The Republicans are also far from innocent of this sort of stuff.

[MODU]

Pretty much politics as usual.  Attach unrelated stuff to important bills and then force the other guys to choose between allowing the unrelated stuff or be forced to explain why they voted against the important part.  The Republicans are also far from innocent of this sort of stuff.

Never said they weren't.  However, when it has come to the funding for the war, they have been fairly well restrained, keeping the items on topic.

[angus]

The Republicans are also far from innocent of this sort of stuff.

Does it seem so much more common in my country than yours?  Is it just the way we're set up that it's so easy for the big players to play this way?  What's the canadian version of a rider, or the French, or German, or Australian, or Portuguese?

[Bono]

The Republicans are also far from innocent of this sort of stuff.

Does it seem so much more common in my country than yours?  Is it just the way we're set up that it's so easy for the big players to play this way?  What's the canadian version of a rider, or the French, or German, or Australian, or Portuguese?

In those countries it's not an issue because given the parliamentary system, the legislature is a rubber-stamping body that doesn't ever add anything to bills coming from the executive. This is why I hate parliamentary systems.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Maybe they're hoping he vetoes it.

[MODU]

Maybe they're hoping he vetoes it.

They are.  That is one of their two options.  He vetoes it and they claim his soft on the war on terror, blah blah blah or he doesn't veto it and they get their pet projects while claiming that Bush doesn't veto spending bills filled with pork.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

[GOP = Terrorists]

They are.  That is one of their two options.  He vetoes it and they claim his soft on the war on terror, blah blah blah or he doesn't veto it and they get their pet projects while claiming that Bush doesn't veto spending bills filled with pork.

Not only is he "soft on terror" he is on the side of Al Queda.  His war in Iraq should have been named the "Al Queda recruitment plan."  So he will veto any bill that provides security as long as he can get away with it.  If he causes the GOP to become extinct then his plan to destroy America would fall through.