• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

A $48 Billion earmark...yes, with a B!!

mike114

mike114

Well-Known Member
seMissourian.com: Column: Mike Jensen: Redistribution on steroids

Can anyone defend this type spending?? This is outright theft of the American people. Remember the bridge to nowhere in Alaska which got tons of media attention? That "little" pork project was only slated to get about $400 million. Pocket change and obviously a rank amatuer compared to Rep Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, a democrat.

Curious to see how much play this gets in the MSM. I'm guessing not much.
 
There are 621,690 people living in Missouri's 5th congressional district. $48 billion would give each person $77,208.90. Nothing like that type of money to "bring about stability and self reliance." Because nothing encourages self reliance like billions of dollars of other people's money.
 
mike114 said:
seMissourian.com: Column: Mike Jensen: Redistribution on steroids

Can anyone defend this type spending?? This is outright theft of the American people. Remember the bridge to nowhere in Alaska which got tons of media attention? That "little" pork project was only slated to get about $400 million. Pocket change and obviously a rank amatuer compared to Rep Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, a democrat.

Curious to see how much play this gets in the MSM. I'm guessing not much.
Click to expand...

You understand don't you that...

1) The article states up front that it was wrong and the congressman did not request that earmark?

2) Earmarks are not additional spending... they just state where spending already approved goes.

If congress approved a budget of 100 Billion for transpotation... without earmarks the president (though the dept of trans) decides where that money is spend.

Anonymous earmarks are bad... public disclosed earmarks are not so bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom