Bush stuffs 2009 budget with earmarks.
Bush stuffs 2009 budget with earmarks.
President Bush has sharply criticized Congress for its earmarks. Yet The New York Times notes that “buried deep” in Bush’s 2009 budget are similar earmarks:
Mr. Bush has often derided Congressional earmarks as “special interest items” that waste taxpayer money and undermine trust in government. Congress, he said, included more than 11,700 earmarks totaling almost $17 billion in spending bills for the current fiscal year.
But some of those earmarks were similar or identical to ones included in the 2009 budget that Mr. Bush sent Congress last week. For example, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, obtained an earmark of $1.5 million last year to deal with the emerald ash borer, a beetle that attacks trees, lawns and crops. Mr. Bush now wants more money to fight that insect.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Gee, Bush-league lies from a shrub. what a surprise.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:45 pmThe only people dumber than bush are the fools that voted for him. twice. Since the dems refuse to impeach him the only avenue left for us is to mock him into oblivion.
February 9th, 2008 at 9:23 pmThe politicians are all a bunch of milk maids working at milking our taxes-cash-cows.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:29 pm… the emerald ash borer, a beetle that attacks trees, lawns and crops. Mr. Bush now wants more money to fight that insect.
And now, the hidden motive behind Bush’s demand.
This is a job for…Tom Delay!… Bug man extraodinaire.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:39 pmPseudo-Conservative Bush spends like a drunk sailor. Big Surprise! :D
February 10th, 2008 at 3:29 amDamn, Merlin. You beat me to it. Nice one.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:46 amYet not a dime in the budget for the the educational benefits promised to surviving families of dead American soldiers that the President promised during the SOTU.
Nice. Real nice.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:06 amComment by CitiDC — February 10, 2008 @ 9:06 am
As Mr. Rove as so clearly articulated, more education usually yields more independent and progressive thinking. Why would they risk losing their base?
February 10th, 2008 at 11:50 am