Hiding in Plain Sight

[Meritaten1]

This editorial appearing in The Buffalo News attempts to explain why a rational and deliberative legislative body would pass a bill so voluminous nobody could reasonably be expected to read all of its provisions before voting:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20041129/1066526.asp

It concerns the 3,500 page budget bill recently passed by the Republican-controlled United States Congress.

Some interesting observations:


(snip)

""This is the best way for members of Congress to do what they want to do, which is to hide decisions that would otherwise be difficult to make on their own," Collender said."

The bill includes projects that might be subject to ridicule in the full light of day."

(snip)



The Republican-controlled Congress managed to cut Pell grants for low income students this year. The country is running a deficit, of course.

But the Republicans did pass this $388 billion piece of legislation.

Interestingly, the editorial notes:

(snip)

"The budget process is not supposed to work this way. Under reforms passed in the 1970s, Congress is supposed to pass 13 separate bills funding different parts of the federal government. Individual bills funding departments and agencies such as defense, labor, education, housing and environment are supposed to be vetted by committees on both sides of Capitol Hill and then passed before Oct. 1. " (emphasis added)

(snip)


What "vetting"?

Despite their apparent inability to apply the previously enacted reforms to the process of passing the budget, the members of Congress spent $2 billion (that is billion with a "b", not a typo) for a project to expand locks on the upper Mississippi River, a project that the National Academies of Science reportedly found to be a waste of money. And they apparently spent a lot of additional taxpayer dollars on other items buried in the bill.

See also: http://www.citizen-times.com/cache/article/editorial/71473.shtml

[whalerider55]

1. thanks

nice article
vetting is the process of going through a bill (or nominee, for that matter) to make sure that they do what they are supposed to do...

whalerider55

[Meritaten1]

2. Yes, we know that

But I'm not sure our Congresspeople do.

[BamaBecky]

3. FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] to approve a LNG [Liquefied su

Well Well, seems the Republicans pulled a fast one on the citizens of Mobile, Alabama and surrounding counties. In the same bill , it seems they also added three paragraphs allowing FERC to approve a LNG facility over and above the state and local objection to the site. In a bit of righteous indignation, the editorial calls for an "outing" of the stealth writer of said offensive language contained in said spending bill. You know those Republicans are down and dirty and they are getting everything they want these days. The God fearing and "value minded" Christians of Mobile are only the first, but certainly will not be the last, to wake up from the night before and wonder "What have I done?" We have lost our democracy because we are too lazy to open our eyes. I say Mobile County just got what they deserved for voting for Republican George W. Bush. The editorial staff of the Mobile Press Register say they have been "slapped in the face". Ha! For the past couple of years I have watched Mobile FIGHT the proposed LNG terminal with considerable opposition and they WON, or at least they thought they did. Gee, it kinda reminds me of exit polls...what do you think?

This was delicious reading for me, after having to slog my way through so many editorials in favor of George W. Bush from the Mobile Press Register.

[EVDebs]

4. Republican wastrels

I remember the joke session Bush had looking for WMDs... "Nope, none here !" I wonder if the Congress and Bush even looked for the missing $1 trillion the military blew lost pissed away (you pick your adjective) ...see

"Military waste under fire
$1 trillion missing -- Bush plan targets Pentagon accounting"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL

In the meantime I now see they plan on borrowing in order to push through the Social Security privatization plan. How lovely. Then they'll have to do the same in order to fund the granddaddy of them all the Medicare/Medicade crisis that is looming

"Medicare faces cost crisis
Multitrillion-dollar deficits loom over federal programs" at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/07/BUG0V9N54U1.DTL

Bush is fiscally and monetarily "handcuffed". His only remaining policy move is to allow the dollar to freefall just as Nixon had to do in 1973. And also like '73 we have rising oil prices...

History does repeat itself. Maybe the Republicans will see the light and decide to go along with an impeachment just to get rid of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Or maybe they want to go down with the sinking ship too !

Check your dictionaries, "PYRRHIC VICTORY" OFFICIALLY RENAMED "BUSH VICTORY"
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i4pyrrhic.htm

[Meritaten1]

7. Yes, EVDebs Republicans are wasting money

Republicans control both houses of Congress,

Republicans control the Appropriations Committees,

and Republicans control the Executive and Judicial branches.

Any traditional conservatives or Libertarians who are concerned about Congressional oversights or the waste of taxpayer money or the way unpopular provisions have been snuck into appropriations bills recently by Republicans without a full vetting should perhaps stop and take a critical look at the Republican Party, especially the neocons and their cronies in the executive branch.

REPUBLICANS are responsible for these failures, and yet Republican leaders are still blaming everyone except **Bush.

[EVDebs]

11. Meritaten1, forgot the $9 billion per month in Iraq...for how long ?

Meritaten1

I forgot to mention, we are currently spending around $9 billion per month in Iraq. Mentioning this is what got Larry Lindsey fired (Paul O'Neill was fired for questioning the need for permanent tax cuts...)

Makes you wonder where Bush is going to get those new economic advisors ! Fired all the smart ones. As I said before, Bush is in economic handcuffs: The only thing he can do is let the dollar fall and hope to equalize that with budget balancing...but as you can already see, he wants a "legacy" and will borrow more to create what has already been created, IRA accounts. This is already available to anyone wanting a 'privatized' social security alternative. Either that or just go out and buy an annuity. No real brainwork involved and no messing with Social Security, which is already in fairly good shape. The real test comes with Medicare reform.

The Iraq mess is costing $9 billion per month ($108 billion spent at least so far this year...may go higher to $120 billion for an even $10 billion per month). With no end in sight and Republicans saying what, 5 years according to Gen Franks' book to from 10 to 20 years according to Sen John McCain on CNN awhile back.

We can continue to put money into "Operation Rathole" in Iraq or make it our 51st state, or pull our troops out now and let Iraqis fight it out in a civil war....we can then come back after they've killed eachother off sufficiently to have lost their taste for war. Besides, they will eventually need oil revenues and a rejuvenated oil infrastructure which we can supply. Right now is turning out to be not the right time. Timing is everything.

Because of these wars with no end in sight we are losing our economic common sense.

[Meritaten1]

12. EVDebs I Agree With You

But I don't think the **Bush regime really ever had any economic sense. It has mislead some Republicans.

It fascinates me that Libertarians and traditional conservatives/regressives, the subsets of the Republican Party who at one time waxed loud and long about "fiscal responsibility" and respecting our Constitution have no problems with spending all this money...Isn't that odd?

It seems to me that the Democratic Party is now the real party of fiscal responsibility and family rights, the party that represents people who are concerned about the ability of Americans to enjoy civil rights, exercise choices in daily life and live in fiscal sanity.

I agree with you completely that the huge amount of money (not to mention all the lives) being lost in Iraq is bleeding the economy dry...And the Republican controlled Congress is spending anyway.

[Xenus Sister]

5. Re #3 What are you talking about? Your subject line cut off.

What?

Got a link to any information? What does this mean for Mobile?

I love hearing how Bushco f*cks over Bush voters in Bush country, but I have no idea what you're discussing. It sounds interesting though.


(Edit, this is in regard to #3)

[BamaBecky]

6. Hi Xenus Sister - It was Sunday's editorial

http://www.al.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion/110163690951940.xml?mobileregister?oedit

part of the article below

LNG mickey slipped into spending bill
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Three paragraphs tucked into the 3,300-page federal spending bill demonstrate again why Congress' last-minute approach to lawmaking is no way to run a country.

The three paragraphs gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a happy Thanksgiving, by supporting FERC's contention that it can approve new liquefied natural gas facilities in spite of state and local opposition.

The provision is a slap in the face to communities like Mobile, where ExxonMobil has wisely dropped plans for an LNG terminal at the site of the former Navy Home Port. Residents, the school board and Gov. Bob Riley opposed the project in large part because of public safety issues surrounding the transportation of massive amounts of superchilled natural gas into the Theodore Ship Channel.

[Xenus Sister]

10. Interesting article. Thank you very much BamaBecky. Are Dems yelling?

This was my first exposure to this issue. I'd never heard of any of this. Let me see if I have this straight (sorry, I know it's off-topic). So, liquified natural gas (LNG) is shipped from overseas (where? it didn't say). A company such as ExxonMobil would have, if they had permission from the city of Mobile, Alabama, built a facility near (? I'm not familar with Mobile geography) the town and brought LNG in in a freighter via local waterways. The city/state/residents didn't like the safety issues (I can't imagine why!! What kind of blast are we talking about here?) so ExxonMobil backed off.

The alternative, that everybody except ExxonMobil didn't mind, would have been to build a storage facility *offshore*, then smaller quantities would be brought into the city via smaller ships (still hazardous, but not as bad). I assume that's a much more expensive option, much more so than an oil drilling platform, which is why they didn't do it. Money trumps safety.

Now, because of this bill, they or another company can build the facility on the mainland whether the city and residents like it or not. Yeah? As Neo would say, woah.

Are all the congresscritters and state and local governments against this? Would/did some, Republicans no doubt, think building on the mainland was a good idea and would be happy about this bill? If so, I assume the Alabama dems are going to shout about this loud and long.

Delaware was also mentioned in the article. Really, jesus, how many people would die if terrorist got a hold of one of these freighters? What a nightmare!

Thanks again. I learn something, generally dozens of somethings, every day here at DU.

[kentuck]

8. Whose job is it to expose what is hidden ??

The press ? What a concept!

[Meritaten1]

9. Yes an open and fair and objective press is a great concept

But now that the Fairness Doctrine is gone

And media consolidation is underway

Does it exist anymore?