When is a Defense Appropriations Bill Not Defense Appropriations Bill?

Why when the Democrats craft it, of course.

Last week Congress passed an emergency defense appropriations bill to fund the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, at least that is what the title of the bill said.

In reality, the majority of the bill was spending on domestic issues and handouts to the Democrat voters. The message is clear. Vote Democrat or suffer.

In the House, Obama's $63 billion request for war funding, disaster relief and aid to nations like earthquake-ravaged Haiti and war-torn Afghanistan has swelled to $84 billion under a draft measure being readied for a key panel vote on Thursday.

Democrats such as House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., are pushing $23 billion to help school districts avoid teacher layoffs, along with $6 billion to make up for a funding shortfall in Pell grants for low-income college students and lesser amounts to hire border patrol agents and help Mexico fight drug cartels.

So, Mr. Obey, how do you feel about Arizona's immigration law? Oh wait, Arizona bad, Congress good.

Okay, let's start doing some math. I know, it makes my head hurt, too.

Dems added $11 billion to the original. Of the $84 billion we have $29 billion so far for teachers salaries and Pell grants. 84 minus 29 equals 55.

$5 billion to replenish disaster aid accounts, as well as funding for Haitian earthquake relief, and a downpayment on aid to flood-drenched Tennessee and Rhode Island.

$55 billion minus another $5 billion equals $50 billion.

The bill includes $1 billion for summer jobs programs, $1.5 billion in aid to farmers who had crops damaged by natural disasters and $4.6 billion to settle two long-running lawsuits against the government, one by black farmers claiming discrimination and one by American Indians over the government's management of their land.

So let me see here, another $7 billion for some feel-good projects bringing the total for defense to $43 billion.

So, how much is actually going to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The Senate measure, currently being debated on the floor, blends about $30 billion for President Barack Obama's 30,000-troop surge in Afghanistan...

You read that right. Slightly more then 1/3 of the money approved will actually go to the ongoing military operations. But hey, don't worry, the gubmint gots plenty of money and it is an election year after all.

In all, the bill would add $134 billion to the federal budget deficit, drawing opposition from Republicans and some Democrats. House leaders said Tuesday they were determined to pass the bill this week to avoid allowing jobless benefits to expire for thousands of people.

Wait, I thought this was a Defense Appropriations Bill? Last time I checked, the service members deployed overseas were not receiving unemployment payments.

The Republicans are not without fault either. While proposing a total appropriations less then the Democrat version they also want money for other things besides defense.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas is just on of several Republicans seeking to add money for border security. He's offered a $2 billion amendment to award grants to state and local law enforcement agencies, provide new unmanned surveillance aircraft, and hire hundreds of immigration and border agents, among other steps.

So in the end, money to pay teachers and fund Pell grants is getting as much money as will actually go to defense.

Obviously, there was far more non defense spending in the bill then the paper had room or time to list but it shows the cowardice of our elected officials. They were on the one hand afraid to vote against legislation because it did contain money to fund our military operations but on the other hand went ahead on piled on the pet projects.

You can vote no on funds for the military when there is stuff not designed to benefit the military. Really, you can. If you are adamant about giving the defense department the money they need to operate you pass a simple bill doing just that and leave out all the junk.

Try it. You might like it, and in so doing might just set a precedent.

And You Wonder Why The Defense Budget Is So Big

I get so tired of liberals and Democrats screaming about how much we spend on defense, when a large part of the defense budget they approve is not defense related at all and contains items the defense department doesn't want.

The bill includes 1,720 earmarks costing $4.2 billion for lawmakers' pet projects, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. Obama has said he would like to eliminate earmarks, which have figured in several corruption scandals.
The bill also would extend a handful of unrelated programs that otherwise would expire at the end of the year, or have expired already.

Programs extended through February 28, 2010, include:

* Jobless benefits and health-insurance subsidies for the unemployed

* The antiterrorism USA Patriot Act, which gives law enforcement enhanced investigative powers

* Current reimbursement rates for doctors under the national Medicare health insurance program for the elderly, averting a 21 percent pay cut

* Current highway and transit programs

* Loosened regulations designed to encourage small business lending. The Small Business Administration will continue to waive or reduce its loan fees and back 90 percent of the loans it oversees

* A law that allows satellite television providers to retransmit broadcast-TV signals

The next time some liberal starts spouting off about how much we spend on defense that could be used for other things like flowers on teachers desks and such just point them to this type of news.

Congress also kept alive over the Pentagon's objections the troubled VH-71 presidential helicopter, made by Lockheed, and an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter made by General Electric Co and Rolls Royce Group Plc.

That damn helicopter just won't go away.

The President Signed What Today?

Well if you rely on CNN for your news the headline reads Obama signs hate crimes bill into law

What he really signed was the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill. While making his speech prior to signing he dwelled on how he and members of congress had worked hard to reduce waste out of the defense budget and talked about how much waste was experienced last year. I guess that is in opposition to how much has been wasted out of the various spending bills congress has passed this year like the stimulus bill, the TARP program, the tax break for new home buyers and their regular annual budget.

What is out of the budget? The F-22 fighter jet, an airborne laser system that was being developed as a missile defense as well to used against ground targets, and something that should be real good news to all the pilots and future victims of hurricanes like Katrina, search and rescue helicopters.

Let's look at what managed to stay in.

The bill, however, would add $1.7 billion for an extra destroyer the Defense Department did not request and $2.5 billion for 10 C-17 cargo planes it did not want, at the behest of lawmakers representing the states where those items would be built. Although the White House said the administration "strongly objects" to the extra C-17s and to the Senate's proposed shift of more than $3 billion from operations and maintenance accounts to projects the Pentagon did not request, no veto was threatened over those provisions.

In total there was almost 800 earmarks in the bill.

Those members include Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., who won 45 earmarks totaling $133,566,000. Moran received the biggest return on his efforts, with $201,100 in contributions from earmark beneficiaries.
Sanford Bishop, D-Ga., another top earmarker, brought home $281,955,000 for pet projects and received from those beneficiaries $67,600 in campaign contributions.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the subcommittee chair, inserted 20 earmarks totaling $77,500,000 and he received $199,050 in campaign contributions. Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., the former Appropriations Committee chair, got 35 earmarks worth $115,700,000. Campaign contributions from those earmark beneficiaries totaled $123,800.

So while Barack Obama goes on and on about cutting defense spending I have to wonder if 10 years from now we will have distinguished members of his party once again taking to the floor of the congress to once again excoriate the Pentagon for not having the right equipment to fight whatever conflict we happen to find ourselves in like they did with the war in Iraq.

Oh yeah and tacked onto this appropriations bill was the legislation making crimes against gay folks a hate crime, thereby creating yet another protected class in America. For some reason CNN thought that was the lead.

Dems Hiding Behind Defense Appropriations

I stand with the Republican house leadership on this issue, and wish folks would take the time to contact their congressional representatives or at least the ones mentioned in this piece to let them know you support them.

The reason is simple. For as long as I can remember members of congress have always tagged distasteful legislation onto and in the defense appropriations bill, although most of the time it comes in the shape of some pet pork barrel project rather then some sort feel good touchy feely legislation like this case.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) are voting against the House/Senate fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill — because it contains hate crimes provisions designed to protect gays and lesbians.

GOP Whip Eric Cantor is also a no, saying that the legislation constitutes classifying a new group of "thought crimes."

The Democrats also probably feel some sort cynical irony in putting hate crimes legislation for gays and lesbians in to the appropriations bill for the military which has a Don't Ask- Don't Tell policy that they have railed against ever since Bill Clinton instituted it.

As a general rule I am against so called hate crimes legislation no matter what shape it takes, since it gets into the realm of what a person was thinking and requires very little other the debating skills of the lawyer in order to convince a jury of such a thing. A crime against a person is enough of a hate crime without trying to find any other motivation.

If the Democrats think this is such a wonderful piece of legislation it should be able to stand on it's own. I am tired of the defense budget being used as some sort of club to blackmail legislators into voting for it even though it contains all sorts of non defense related items. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in congress are trying to play a game of chicken, knowing that if the Republicans vote against this they can use it in next years campaign commercials. Republicans need to have the nerve to take a stand and then be ready to defend the vote when the next election cycle starts. The bottom line is the Dems can pass this without the Republicans anyway, but I am looking for those who can put principles ahead of political expediency.

Let Boehner, Pence, and Cantor know that sometimes you have to stand up for what is right even when it isn't easy, and that is the lesson we need to be teaching everyone. The one word of warning I would give them however is don't be hypocrites when it comes to doing this and try to put something in the next defense appropriations bill that you want.

Will the Senate Veto This Travesty?

Yesterday the House of Representatives voted down a pork laden defense appropriations bill that also included mandates on troop withdrawals and today it is the Senate's turn.

Let's see what they do?

The package, approved on a voice vote, includes $169 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through part of next year and more than $25 billion in new domestic spending, The Hill, a Washington publication, reported. It also sets a goal for troops to be moved out of a military role in Iraq by June 2009.

There is so much going on in Washington this week and Michelle Malkin is busy tracking the latest attempt to get some sort of amnesty legislation pushed through via the backdoor.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

House Rejects Defense Appropriations Bill

Good. It was the most pork laden, non-defense appropriations bill to come down the pike in awhile. While it has been common practice for legislators to put all kinds of pork in defense bills because they knew it was political suicide to vote against defense spending, this bill had things such as requiring an immediate withdrawal of troops and spending on projects here at home that it was ridiculous.

It is just breaking on Fox so no links yet.

In the initial report something like a 130 representatives only voted present which gives you a good idea of how many lily-livered, weak-kneed, spineless, congress critters we have on both sides of the aisle. Nobody wanted to go on record for or against it.

Throw the bums out!

UPDATE: Here's a link

And check out this little bit of Democrat fit pitching.

House Democrats on Thursday approved a non-binding plan seeking an exit from Iraq by December of next year.

The 224 to 196 vote mostly broke along party lines and runs into a veto threat from President Bush. It would also require that soldiers spend no more than one year in Iraq and then get at least one year at home.

The vote gives only a symbolic victory to anti-war Democrats. The restrictions on Bush's Iraq policy are certain to stall in the Senate.

The Dems are just having a real bad day between Bush's speech at the Knesset and now defeat of their faux defense spending bill; it looks like they are going to have a bad weekend.