Just Had Two Bailout Bills ... Now Another

First we had the Bush Bailout Bill last October of so. Then we had the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Bailout Bill in early February. Now Congress prepares their next massive spending bill. We let them go once ... then twice ... now 900 earmarks in a new bill ....

When will it end? When we are broke!


Another massive spending bill on the agenda ($410 Billion Omnibus Spending Bill)


S.A. Miller
Monday, February 23, 2009


After a week off taking a victory lap for passing an economic stimulus, Congress' Democratic leaders return to Washington on Monday for a second race against the clock to pass another massive spending package.

This time it is a roughly $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill that would fund most of the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year, replacing stopgap funding that expires March 6.

The Senate this week also is expected to take up long-debated legislation to give the District a voting member in the House and the confirmation of Labor Secretary-designee Hilda L. Solis, one of the last vacancies in President Obama's Cabinet.

The omnibus spending bill already has become a target for Republican attacks on the Democrat-led Congress' penchant for pork-barrel projects and burgeoning deficits.

Mr. Obama will confront that criticism head on this week when he addresses Congress on Tuesday and submits a 2010 budget that promises to cut the federal deficit for $1.3 trillion to $533 billion in four years.

He also will convene a White House summit on fiscal responsibility Monday with congressional leaders from both parties, as well as economists and interest group members.

Democrats nevertheless risk wearing out voters' patience with Congress' spending habits as the omnibus package arrives on the heels of a $700 billion Wall Street bailout and a $787 billion economic stimulus. It will be followed by the budget bill - likely sparking fresh debate over pork projects - and likely more pricey measures to prop up the financial, housing and automotive industries.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged the political risk associated with passing so much expensive legislation in such a short period of time.

“There are many challenges ahead, and they all have to fit into a strategic plan for a strong economy in a fiscally sound way, accountable to the public,” the California Democrat said.

“Each of these pieces of legislation will have to justify its existence in those terms, also in terms of, how does the taxpayer get paid back?” she said. “Because we absolutely intend to proceed in a very fiscally sound way.”

Republicans have objected to Democrats keeping the omnibus spending bill hidden from public view for weeks, despite calls to post it on the Internet. The secrecy spurred Republican speculation the bill could be loaded with expensive pet projects or partisan policy directives such as a renewed ban on offshore oil drilling.

“Time is running short, and American taxpayers deserve to know how their hard-earned tax dollars will be used under this legislation,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

“The fact that the Democratic majority is planning to bring this massive spending bill to the House floor just days after Congress approved the trillion-dollar stimulus spending plan is added proof that 'borrow and spend' has become Washington's go-to strategy for funding more programs and projects that taxpayers do not need and cannot afford,” he said.

The omnibus, which contains nine of the 12 annual appropriation bills, is expected to increase government spending about 6 percent over fiscal 2008 levels.

The other three annual spending bills - Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security - were passed last year with a continuing resolution that has kept the government running at 2008 funding levels since the fiscal year began Oct. 1. The continuing resolution expires March 6.

A House vote on the omnibus spending bill could come as soon as Wednesday.

The Senate could vote on the District representation bill and the confirmation of Mrs. Solis as soon as Tuesday. Both will require 60 votes to survive.

“We see a light at the end of a very long tunnel for voting rights for D.C. residents,” said Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's nonvoting delegate to the House.

But she said she anticipates Republican moves to block the legislation, which would offset the all but certain addition of a Democratic vote in the chamber by giving another House member to solidly Republican Utah.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, says there is political risk in so much expensive legislation in a short period of time, but she added, "we absolutely intend to proceed in a very fiscally sound way."

Republican leaders oppose the measure because they say it violates the U.S. Constitution's establishment that only states shall have voting representation in Congress.

A constitutional amendment would be the proper mechanism to extend full representation to the District, opponents argue.





“Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people.

They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any Socialist revolution.


Josie06 Josie06
56-60, F
9 Responses Feb 23, 2009

Yeah, this is the point where things get complicated. Telling a company what it can and can't spend its money on (even if it perhaps shouldn't be their money).<br />
<br />
It starts sounding a little bit like Socialism and the S word causes elephants more fear and anxiety than seeing Freddie Mercury in leather pants.<br />
<br />
<br />
Austin Nichols

I think that the first thing is for anyone that gets money must....MUST be required to show the books as to how it is used......And no CEO....or board should get a bonus.....or raise until it is all paid back to the governemt....No private jets.....You need to have a meeting...Well in the town that the Corp. offices are....I am sure that there is a Holiday Inn....or Best Western somewhere.....In fact Best Western is great place....They give you free internet....Save a few more cents...No added fee's....and they always have a Denny's close.....Grand Slam fills you up.,...and keeps you going...


celerystalk3000 ... my complaint has been this bailout never reaches the citizens, individual citizens. Corporate citizens, yes.<br />
<br />
A reduction in mortgage rates and credit card interest rates would help everyone ... even you and me.<br />
<br />
Your 401K is now in Congresses headlights as an easy source of money for them. <br />
<br />
Our only cure is to elect different representatives, ones without the wealth redistribution mentality, to Congress in 2010.

Yeah, let's give the fiscally unsound a bailout, and let those of us who were prudent with our spending and didn't mortgage ourselves to the hilt foot the bill. Not only have all my investments tanked, my property values sunk, and my 401k gone into the toilet, now I need to spend money to help out the dillweeds that caused the whole thing!! Give ME a reduction in my mortgage interest rate, and maybe I'll be more sympathetic!

UnoriginalForumID ... you're right. That has been my complaint all along.<br><br />
<br><br />
None of this makes it to the people, the ordinary citizen. Also, too little of it truly reaches a business that might hire and keep employed someone not working.<br><br />
<br><br />
i heard on the news, that in one portion of the last bailout (Pokulus) passed in February ... that individuals might see maybe $13.00 a month in relief.<br><br />
<br><br />
Gee, thanks oh wise ones!<br><br />
<br><br />
Also, now the word is the Bush tax reductions set to expire in 2010 will not be renewed. Therefore that means there will be a tax increase for everyone when the rates return to their original levels.

Oh, and we wouldn't be so broke if not for that whole war effort thing.<br />
<br />
Cough. I've been so ill lately.

Instead of bailing out banks directly I think they should pay off a certain percentage of peoples' credit card debt. The banks get theirs, the proles get a little weight off our back and everyone looks good.<br />
<br />
But i'm no economist, I'm just an ******* with a calculator and salt and vinegar chips.

Hope and change baby. I hope that I am left with some change...like dimes, nickels, and pennies.