|
Sat May 15, 2010 at 15:50:13 PM MST
|
A $59 Billion supplemental spending package passed the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday. The package includes $33.5 Billion for the wars occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
When the health care insurance legislation was being unnecessarily delayed due to hypocritical ConservaDems' refusal to consider it without demanding that it reduce the national deficit, a number of folks, especially in the blogosphere, wondered where this rekindled interest in the deficit had come from. Nobody remembered those same deficit peacocks braying about the unfunded occupations of two countries; no evidence that I'm aware of has been found to contradict that observation.
Now that more occupation funding is coming up for a vote in the full Senate, now would be a prime time for those deficit peacocks to focus their supposedly righteous ire on billions of taxpayer dollars being tossed around.
Indeed, the Senate's climate and energy legislation unveiled earlier this week not only includes PAYGO language, but up to 25% of proceeds from pollution allowances sold in out-year auctions are being designated to paying the deficit down!! |
| WeatherDem :: Is Iraq/Afghanistan Supplemental Funding Subject To PAYGO? |
Among the deficit peacocks were our own two Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet. Sen. Udall in particular drew my attention due to his voting record on the unfunded supplementals during the Bush Regime. Now that both of our Senators have expressed to Coloradans that one value they hold dear is not leaving mountains of debt to future generations, at least as it related to health care insurance legislation, I fully expect both of them to make heart-felt floor speeches and offer amendments to this supplemental so that its funding will be matched by cuts elsewhere in the budget.
That's if no such language doesn't already exist in the legislation, of course. But I don't think it does - no supplementals to date have included such language, including those passed in 2009.
If no such language currently exists, and our two Senators don't offer it in an amendment to the legislation, I think Coloradans would deserve a lengthy explanation about why occupation funding shouldn't be subject to PAYGO while health care funding should be.
After all, $33.5 Billion in funding has to be making our country more secure, right? It's not like we're paying for mercenaries to operate without oversight. It's not like private corporations have padded their profits with billions in taxpayer dollars. There would be no reason to hold domestic health care policy to a higher standard than foreign war policy, would there? |
Squarestate.net is owned by Open Communications Colorado, LLC. and is not responsible for the opinions expressed outside of our own.
|
|
SquareState.net is owned by Open Communications Colorado, LLC
