Author Topic: Pelosi on pork stuffed CR bill: 'what difference does it make?'  (Read 308 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69,454
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Pelosi on pork stuffed CR bill: 'what difference does it make?'
« on: October 19, 2013, 06:48:31 AM »
Pelosi On Pork-Stuffed CR Bill: “What Difference Does It Make?”

Posted By Philip Hodges on Oct 19, 2013 | 1 Comment

Pelosi was channeling the spirit of Hillary Clinton at one of her press conferences recently. Reporters were asking her about all the extra stuff that found its way into the bill whose purported purpose was to re-open the government that was never actually shut down and to raise the debt limit so that the world doesn’t explode.

Apparently, that’s not all that was in the bill. I mean, it’s not like it’s all that surprising to find out that in this “clean” CR bill, there were appropriations to fund projects that had nothing to do with the government shutdown or the debt sky ceiling:

 The bill included funds [up to $450 million] to fix flooded roads in Colorado, $3 million for a civil liberties oversight board, a death benefit payment to the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s (D-N.J.) widow, as well as an increase in authorization for spending on construction on the lower Ohio River in Illinois and Kentucky. The bill increases it to $2.918 billion.

When reporters asked Pelosi about the pork, she replied:

“What difference does it make? Why are we talking about this? We’re talking about a bill that as I said last night, I’m not asking anybody to vote for this bill on the merits… My members have some of the same questions, not certainly in terms of the death benefit to the Lautenberg family, but when you have a CR, it is an appropriation, and this, yes would be the normal place for them to do that. So if you want to have an objection to the bill, there are bigger things to object to, but the fact is that we had to open government… You’ll have to talk to them about what’s in the bill and what its purpose was, but what I said on the floor, I’m not pinning a rose on the bill, but I am voting for it, because we have to open government.”

So, she says she didn’t like the bill, but she still voted for it. That’s what politicians do. Vote for things they claim they don’t agree with, because it’s the “responsible” thing to do, or so they can be seen as working together as a team. And she did the “responsible” thing in voting for the bill, even though it turned out to be another irresponsible appropriations boondoggle that funded a bunch of pet projects.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 06:50:11 AM by rangerrebew »
Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.

Joseph Story

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo