‘Conservatives’ decide to tighten their belts and stop wasteful spending:
Emergency money that President George W. Bush requested to combat a looming influenza pandemic has been deleted from a U.S. health-funding bill after conservative Republicans insisted it would have to be paid for by cutting other government programs.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday was set to debate the massive health-funding bill. After days of intensive talks between the House and Senate, negotiators dropped a plan for $8 billion in funds that Democrats pushed through the Senate last month.
Following that Senate vote, Bush on November 1 asked Congress for $7.1 billion in emergency money.
The funding fight erupted after conservative Republicans in the House insisted that an emergency U.S. effort to stockpile vaccines and anti-viral drugs that could be effective against the deadly flu would have to be paid for by cutting other government programs.
But not too tight. Wouldn’t want Sen. Ted Stevens to resign, after all:
Mandatory funding for two controversial bridge projects in Alaska — including the ridiculed “bridge to nowhere” — has been stripped from a federal spending bill, a congressional committee said on Wednesday.
In an unusual move to change “pork” spending, House-Senate negotiators removed the $432 million in required spending during final talks on a yearly bill to fund programs for the Transportation and Treasury departments, the House Appropriations Committee said.
As a compromise, Alaska will still receive the money that had been set aside for the bridges to spend as it likes on transportation needs.
In other words, they defunded mandatory spending on the ‘bridge to nowhere,’ but gave them the damned money anyway.
Fiscal Conservatism circa 2005- Defund preparations for the pandemic flu, and shower Alaska with filthy lucre as a compromise for removing a stupid piece of pork-barreling spending that should not have been there anyway.
But at least Ted Stevens can keep his job– Alaska isn’t being ‘discriminated’ against.
jcricket
Good lord, what a ridiculous sham of fiscal conservatism. That’s just ridiculous. Alaska gets oodles of money from their oil discovery profits, they don’t need that money more than (say) poor people in Alabama or New Orleans. Also note that Ted Stevens is attempting to retaliate against those that oppose those bridges, like Sen. Cantwell, by relaxing environmental rules in WA state.
Ted Stevens can go Cheney himself.
BTW, in WA state supporters of the gas tax repeal (which failed) are always on the lookout for “gotcha” wasteful spending projects by the DOT. Where are the Republicans nationally on stuff like this? Nowhere.
Say what you want about taxes, but it’s economics 101. Tax and spend is generally more fiscally sound policiy than borrow, spend + cut taxes.
Otto Man
I’m glad to see they challenged the earmarks, but from my reading of the article it seems that the money is still earmarked to the state and can still be used to build the same “bridges to nowhere” if the governor so decides. And this is a governor who just spent $2.6 million on a luxury jet that can’t even land on most of the state’s runways. I wouldn’t be surprised if he put the bridges through, too.
Personally, I wish they’d called Stevens’ bluff. Strike down the earmarks, turn the money to the Gulf Coast, and let Senator Crybaby take his ball and go home.
Zifnab
Fiscal Conservativism. What a fucking joke. When you’re not cutting $500 billion dollar checks to big oil companies, you’re running up trillion dollar deficits.
Let’s all remember one more time exactly which President it was that managed to bring our budget back into the black while waging peace in Kosovo, preserving Social Security, and reforming Medicare without gutting the system outright. Clinton we impeach? What a fucking country.
Steven Donegal
This article from the Anchorage Daily News tells you as much about life in DC as you will ever need to know. Good God, the state may actually have to pay for something itself!
Shygetz
That’s a compromise?
Wow…Ok, you can’t have the money for a bridge to nowhere, but you can have the same amount to spend on whatever you want (including a bridge to nowhere). And Stevens sighs, grouses, and grudgingly accepts the “compromise.”
So, when do Republicans compromise on food stamps. “Ok, you’re not going to get any more food stamps, but we will cut you a check for the same amount, and you can spend it on food if you want.”
circlethewagons
You ever do a count of posts in the Republican Stupidity file as opposed to the number in the Democratic Stupidity one?
Cause it seems to me that the Republicans are rapidly outstupiding the Democrats. At least lately.
Mr Furious
He should double-up and make the bridges long enough to land his jet on!
Kimmitt
Look, it’s like this:
Either a pandemic doesn’t happen, and the money is wasted, or the influenza hits. We already know that this Administration can’t find their asses with both hands and an ass-finding dog, so they’re going to botch the vaccine delivery anyways. So, politically, it’s lose-lose; may as well keep the pork and hope for the best.
Dantheman
And of course, this is at the same time as another $70 billion in tax cuts are passing Congress. Can we officially proclaim “Republican fiscal conservatism” to be an oxymoron?
Sine.Qua.Non
And here I thought the horse’s ass said he was going to resign either way! Damnit to hell.
Steve S
If you go look at the Federal Budget, you’ll find the two biggest areas of discretionary expenditure are Military and Debt Payments.
That is, we’re spending somewhere in the $300-400 billion a year range in Interest.
You can talk all you want about cutting $2 billion in Medicaid or $3 billion in food stamps. It ain’t going to amount to a hill of beans. The real problem are those Interest payments.
If we didn’t have the debt to begin with, our budget would be balanced.
And who is to blame for that debt?
That’s right… Ronald Reagan and GW Bush, the two people who never cared about debt and gave us plenty of it as their legacy.
Fiscal conservatism is dead. Ronald Reagan killed it, and GW Bush tossed some dirt in the grave.
Steve S
But they aren’t really cuts. They are shifting the burden. The Republicans cut the taxes for the wealthy, but to make up with it, they have to sock it to the middle class.
Look at their latest recommendations of eliminating mortgage tax deduction and such. I figured it out and it’s going to cost me a couple of grand.
Krista
An ass-finding dog? I don’t think I want to know how it was trained…
Cyrus
Kimmitt Says:
I have to stop reading Balloon Juice at work, because several times, it has been hard to stop myself from literally laughing out loud. This time I failed completely.
Mac Buckets
The Democrats were misled into voting 246-0 for this porked-up bill. They were lied to by Bush and didn’t think there really was any pork in the bill. Besides, they didn’t want the money to be spent on pork — they just authorized the President to spend the money on pork if all other means to achieve “Robert Byrd Bridge over Robert Byrd Farm Road 2763” failed. They can’t be held responsible for their unaninmous “yes to pork” vote.
If the Democratic Party had the collective intelligence of a paper napkin, wouldn’t they have gotten it together to at least have a token number of Democrats vote “no” to the bill, rather than voting 246-0 in favor of pork, so they could at least pretend to be against it? McCain will be politically rewarded for his “no” vote down the line, book it.
Steve S
Someone should check the dosage on Mac’s meds.
Mr Furious
It’s easy. Since they’re all born as crotch-finders, it’s just a slight redirection around the corner…
That line really cracked me up, nice onen Kimmitt.
scs
You know I was thinking about that Alaskan bridge. The only reason I can think they are giving the money is not to build the bridge but to provide jobs to many unemployed people in the area, so like a works projects. Or, maybe it is somehow tied to trying to oil drilling in Alaska. Is it a quid pro quo? We’ll let you drill if you give us money. Or can this bridge be used for transport to the oil areas for any reason? There has got to be another reason than just the bridge.
JWeidner
In all seriousness, the thing that is so galling about this isn’t so much the pork (although that is galling in its own right). It’s that the Republicans seem to have picked such an incredibly bad time to play the Fiscal Responsibility Game. We’re talking about spending $8 Billion to help fight what could be the worst virus to hit the US since the 1918 flu pandemic, and Republicans decide that THIS is where they need to make their stand against profligate spending.
I mean, C’MON! Why would you choose now, when we could be staring down the barrel of a loaded gun, to cut funding that could possibly help aleviate the effects that an unchecked pandemic would cause? Why would you fly in the face of respectable scientific opinion…
Wait…I forgot we’re dealing with the Republican party. Science doesn’t count, but Jesus saves.
Steve S
We could say $100 billion next year by pulling our troops out of Iraq.
Jon H
I say we give them the money, but drop it as loose bills and dollar coins from a helicopter over some grizzly-infested wetland.