On April 4, 2006 the Republican-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee approved a $106.5 billion supplemental spending bill. The bill appropriated $72.4 billion for war funding in Iraq and Afghanistan and foreign aid and $27.1 billion for hurricane relief. Other non-war spending requests added to the bill:
Senator Burns (R-Montana): $4 billion for agriculture relief
Senator Shelby (R-Alabama): $1.1 billion for fisheries
Senator Hutchinson (R-Texas): $350 million for the Education Department to reimburse states for education displaced students
All told, the Senate Committee added $14 billion in spending above the president's initial request. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, interestingly said of this spending: "The Senate's appetite for unchecked federal spending greatly strengthens the hand of conservatives pushing budget process reforms. I'm not happy with what they did, but it's helpful to our cause."
As I recall, this bill was not vetoed by President Bush... stop the madness!
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 33
This bill was passed last year by the Republican-controlled Senate... and signed by President Bush.
I couldn't agree more. I wonder why President Bush signed it last year after it passed the Republican-controlled Senate...
Read the 2006 bill and Bush's original threats to veto it because the "pork" was not related to his specific request for military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The problems at VA hospitals don't help him at all.
Very interesting.
I would like to point out (again) that my original article is about the 2006 supplemental spending bill passed by a Republican-controlled Senate and signed by President Bush... much pork from Republicans and no veto from Bush.
Where was the outcry from the Right last year when this took place? $1.1 billion for fisheries... what does that have to do with Iraq?
Bush threatened to veto the 2006 bill because of the pork, but in the end he signed it.
My article is titled "War-Funding Pork: a Slap in the Face to our Military!" I make no mention of timelines for withdrawl from Iraq. That is a separate issue.
George W. Bush during his weekly radio address regarding the '07 supplemental spending bill.
Clearly, Bush does not want any pork in the '07 bill, but apparently it was ok in the '06 bill he signed.
I think Ty is right, pork only tastes good when it comes from your own party.
The dems don't have the numbers to override a veto, but they have the numbers to continue to send spending bills to Bush that contain contingencies and benchmarks... and he can continue to veto them. Sooner or later a compromise has to be worked out... hence the Senate's attempt to add non-binding language to their bill which also sets a deadline for withdrawl by '08.
Eventually, Bush will have to sign a funding bill, and you can bet that the dems won't let it be a "clean bill" without contingencies and benchmarks.