Posts with the tag Funding
About the Author
Speak Your Piece: Give Rural Entrepreneurs a Slice
11/18/2008
0 commentsemailprint
The federal government is stepping in to support banks and insurance companies and, perhaps, the auto industry, too. Now it needs to invest in rural small-business development also.
By Brian Depew
Lyons, Nebraska
Main Street in Lyons, Nebraska, pop. 963
Photo: Blog for Rural America
Every day we read and hear more about the deepening effect of the current financial crisis. Businesses are closing because they cannot find the credit they need to meet payroll, large companies are laying off employees, and the historic swings of the stock market are affecting families across the nation.
Missing from the daily paper are stories about the part of the economy that is working -- small businesses, the economic heroes of our communities. Read More »
11/18/2008
0 commentsemailprint
The federal government is stepping in to support banks and insurance companies and, perhaps, the auto industry, too. Now it needs to invest in rural small-business development also.
By Brian Depew
Lyons, Nebraska
Main Street in Lyons, Nebraska, pop. 963
Photo: Blog for Rural America
Every day we read and hear more about the deepening effect of the current financial crisis. Businesses are closing because they cannot find the credit they need to meet payroll, large companies are laying off employees, and the historic swings of the stock market are affecting families across the nation.
Missing from the daily paper are stories about the part of the economy that is working -- small businesses, the economic heroes of our communities. Read More »
In 2003, the Bush administration stated that any budget woes due to the War in Iraq would be short lived, because Iraqi Oil Revenues would pay for it!!!!!
The United States posted a $423 billion dollar budget deficit for 2008. Much of this deficit is attributable to the Iraq War. Iraqi Oil Revenue hasn't paid for any of it.
Republicans have responded to the budget deficit, and public concern about the economy, by stalling several of the appropriations necessary to fund the federal government. "We have spent huge amounts of taxpayer dollars recklessly on a futile and expensive war. We must shut down our own government."
Specifically, House Republicans have stalled the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (one of the 12 that must be passed to fund the federal government). Bush has vowed to beto any appropriations bill that comes in above the dollar amount he expressly asked Congress for. That amount was $3.00.
Bush has also refused to sign the Farm Bill (which is in it's 6th extension) because of "earmark abuse." Bush failed to specify which appropriations were objectionable. Rather, he ordered Congress to present him with a bill reflecting the number he felt should be spent on Agriculture.
Bush then asked Congress to guess what number he was thinking of. Presidential Hint: "it's between one and ten."
Bush offered to give GA Congressman and Agriculture Committee Chair Saxby Chamblis TWO chances to guess what number he was thinking of.
Chambliss raised his middle finger and asked the President to guess which finger he was holding up.
The United States posted a $423 billion dollar budget deficit for 2008. Much of this deficit is attributable to the Iraq War. Iraqi Oil Revenue hasn't paid for any of it.
Republicans have responded to the budget deficit, and public concern about the economy, by stalling several of the appropriations necessary to fund the federal government. "We have spent huge amounts of taxpayer dollars recklessly on a futile and expensive war. We must shut down our own government."
Specifically, House Republicans have stalled the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (one of the 12 that must be passed to fund the federal government). Bush has vowed to beto any appropriations bill that comes in above the dollar amount he expressly asked Congress for. That amount was $3.00.
Bush has also refused to sign the Farm Bill (which is in it's 6th extension) because of "earmark abuse." Bush failed to specify which appropriations were objectionable. Rather, he ordered Congress to present him with a bill reflecting the number he felt should be spent on Agriculture.
Bush then asked Congress to guess what number he was thinking of. Presidential Hint: "it's between one and ten."
Bush offered to give GA Congressman and Agriculture Committee Chair Saxby Chamblis TWO chances to guess what number he was thinking of.
Chambliss raised his middle finger and asked the President to guess which finger he was holding up.
What's the point of asking tough questions during hearings dealing with the Iraq War when congressional democrats will just turn around and hand Bush another blank check. What happened to denying the Bush administration additional war funding without fulfilling clear benchmarks or timetables. It's pathetic how spineless the party has become. This strategy is not sustainable; it is hindering our national security, our economy, and destroying the lives of our service men and women. We have the power of the purse, so USE IT!!! Grow some courage and defend our nation’s interests and assets. Congress is our only voice and it's being muffled. Today I am truly ashamed, as a citizen, a veteran, and a democrat. Where's the hope?
Absolutely "No" to Bush's proposed budget of $70 billion for the Iraq budget!
I am registered Republican and was thinking of changing my registration to Democrat, but if the Democrats hand this to Bush, I think it will be time to look towards the legitimatization of a third party though increased public support. Because, as I see it, since the Democrats have so completely fallen in "Lock Step" with Bush, this is no longer a legitimate multi-party system with checks and balances as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution with government representatives that support the constituents that voted them into office.
Mark Jacobsen
I am registered Republican and was thinking of changing my registration to Democrat, but if the Democrats hand this to Bush, I think it will be time to look towards the legitimatization of a third party though increased public support. Because, as I see it, since the Democrats have so completely fallen in "Lock Step" with Bush, this is no longer a legitimate multi-party system with checks and balances as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution with government representatives that support the constituents that voted them into office.
Mark Jacobsen
There will be some testimony in Congress this week that will lay these myths to rest:
Link
Jim Callahan
Orlando, FL
the delay in our funding will means this for our military:
* Unless Congress acts, the Defense Department will soon be required to begin giving layoff notices to about 100,000 civilian employees.
* Unless Congress acts, the military task force developing ways to better detect and protect our troops from roadside bombs will run out of money by early next year.
* Unless Congress acts, the Army will run out of operations and maintenance money in February.
* Unless Congress acts, the Marine Corps will run out of similar funds in March.
Link
Jim Callahan
Orlando, FL
Here is the response to my complaint about Rick Larsen
s "yes" vote. I disagree strongly with the main withdrawl strategy listed below, but respect his staffers are at least on the ball to have a decent, coherent, quick response...especially considering I'm not in his district. IF this is the partyline strategy for dealing with the President for the next year, then truly our voices need to be louder and stronger. This President has shown NOT to believe in compromise or rethinking his position. These "yes" and "no" votes WILL be remembered come re-election time. Read More »
s "yes" vote. I disagree strongly with the main withdrawl strategy listed below, but respect his staffers are at least on the ball to have a decent, coherent, quick response...especially considering I'm not in his district. IF this is the partyline strategy for dealing with the President for the next year, then truly our voices need to be louder and stronger. This President has shown NOT to believe in compromise or rethinking his position. These "yes" and "no" votes WILL be remembered come re-election time. Read More »
NOTHING to be disappointed about, supporters! His statement is firm and resolute. Edwards/Obama 2008! :)
May 24, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement on his vote on the supplemental appropriations bill:
“This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one.”
“We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. We need a plan to compel the Iraqi people to reach a political accommodation and to take responsibility for their own future. It's time to change course.”
“I opposed this war in 2002 precisely because I feared it would lead us to the open-ended occupation in which we find ourselves today.”
“This President has led us down a disastrous path and has arrogantly refused to acknowledge the grim reality of this war, which has cost us so dearly in lives and treasure.”
“After he vetoed a plan that would have funded the troops and begun to bring them home, this bill represents more of his stubborn refusal to address his failed policy.”
“We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path.”
“With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”
May 24, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement on his vote on the supplemental appropriations bill:
“This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one.”
“We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. We need a plan to compel the Iraqi people to reach a political accommodation and to take responsibility for their own future. It's time to change course.”
“I opposed this war in 2002 precisely because I feared it would lead us to the open-ended occupation in which we find ourselves today.”
“This President has led us down a disastrous path and has arrogantly refused to acknowledge the grim reality of this war, which has cost us so dearly in lives and treasure.”
“After he vetoed a plan that would have funded the troops and begun to bring them home, this bill represents more of his stubborn refusal to address his failed policy.”
“We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path.”
“With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”
Over the past few weeks, I've repeatedly pressed for action on an issue that is, literally, a matter of life or death for tens of thousands of Americans in uniform.
I'm writing today because I am sickened by what I have just learned about this administration's failure to address the issue... and because I am determined that we start to get right what they've gotten so wrong.
More after the jump. Read More »
I'm writing today because I am sickened by what I have just learned about this administration's failure to address the issue... and because I am determined that we start to get right what they've gotten so wrong.
More after the jump. Read More »
I received this email today and think it is important enough to share with the community. I am sure many of you have received this at home but just in case you didn't.
Read More »
Right now Americans are coming together with one voice to demand George W. Bush follow the will of the people and not veto the Democratic plan for change in Iraq.
I've spent my entire professional career standing up for our men and women in uniform. I have carefully reviewed and considered the Democrats' plan for change in Iraq. More than any bill passed by the previous Republican Rubber Stamp Congress, it ensures our troops have the training and equipment they need - and our veterans get the services they deserve.
Given President Bush's and Vice President Cheney's unwarranted public bullying today of the Congress over the issue of whether they have the right to tie funding of the military to conditions as they see fit - I think it is important to have an reality check from the Founding Fathers:
"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."
- Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton, March 14th, 1788.
Mr. President - Commander in Chief does not mean "king". Your job is to direct the order of battle, not to declare wars, raise armies, or appropriate money to pay for them. It is not up to you to decide which wars need to be fought and which do not - that is the right and responsibility of Congress. Your only duty is to see that any wars which Cognress chooses to fight are won - a job at which you've failed miserably thus far.
Until you can succeed in YOUR responsibility in directing the order of battle as Commander in Chief, it will be best if you stay out of the business of Congress in funding (or not funding) the war and abide by their wishes in the matter.
Respectfully,
Douglas J. De Clue
Orlando, FL
"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."
- Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton, March 14th, 1788.
Mr. President - Commander in Chief does not mean "king". Your job is to direct the order of battle, not to declare wars, raise armies, or appropriate money to pay for them. It is not up to you to decide which wars need to be fought and which do not - that is the right and responsibility of Congress. Your only duty is to see that any wars which Cognress chooses to fight are won - a job at which you've failed miserably thus far.
Until you can succeed in YOUR responsibility in directing the order of battle as Commander in Chief, it will be best if you stay out of the business of Congress in funding (or not funding) the war and abide by their wishes in the matter.
Respectfully,
Douglas J. De Clue
Orlando, FL
War efforts funded through July, analysis finds
from Dana Bash
CNN congressional correspondent
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new analysis of funding for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan concludes the Army could continue to wage war through July without additional funding from Congress.
The analysis may bolster Democrats in their increasingly contentious veto showdown with President Bush.
In a report prepared for the Senate Budget Committee, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said the Pentagon has flexibility to transfer money from elsewhere for "urgent requirements" and could finance the war with current appropriations "through most of July 2007."
More: Link Read More »
from Dana Bash
CNN congressional correspondent
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new analysis of funding for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan concludes the Army could continue to wage war through July without additional funding from Congress.
The analysis may bolster Democrats in their increasingly contentious veto showdown with President Bush.
In a report prepared for the Senate Budget Committee, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said the Pentagon has flexibility to transfer money from elsewhere for "urgent requirements" and could finance the war with current appropriations "through most of July 2007."
More: Link Read More »
Posts By Month
Posts
