• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

More Repub Pork

A

Anonymous

Guest
Congressman Rehberg held himself a waffle party in Missoula this past Friday. Montana's lone Congressman attended a news conference at the Poverello Center to claim credit for securing a $285,000 appropriation for the Pov in the FY09 Approps bill.

In a statement, Rehberg said: "I'm happy I was able to secure federal assistance for the Poverello Center."

But here's the funny thing, Rehberg voted against the 2009 Appropriations Bill that contained said "federal assistance." Rehberg is not keeping his no vote a secret. His reasoning is spelled out clearly: "Congress is spending too much and racking up a huge debt."

If that's the case, why is the Congressman traveling the state bragging about the money he just secured? And since when do politicians vote against projects they claim credit for?

Earlier this month, Rehberg also voted against the recovery/jobs bill. A few days later, Rehberg tried to justify his no vote while bragging about the bill's benefits to a Montana Rural Water Systems conference in Great Falls.

Look, we know he's got a big state to represent, but that doesn't mean he has to talk and vote out of both sides of his mouth, he could just put on his big boy pants and say, "I voted against the jobs bill and the budget for next year -- and against all the spending for those Montana projects -- because I think it is a waste of money."

I mean, his hypocrisy is bad enough that John McCain labeled one Rehberg's earmarks -- $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center -- as the 7th porkiest item in the approps bill.

http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=1961&category=Earmarks&type=Project
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Yep, they all do it, and some on here keep making excuses for them.

Yep-- and its too bad a Repub took the line item veto to court and got it ruled unconstitutional... :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
The opportunity to re-write it was not exercised either.

Yep--ruled unconstitutional in 1998...I wonder who controlled Congress for the next 8 years- and the White House for 8 of the last 10... :???: :wink:

Personally I don't think we'll ever get one-- as it may take a Constitutional Amendment to get one that will stand up in court because it interfers with Congress's duty/power to appropriate funds and the division of power between the Administrative and Legislative branches...
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Congressman Rehberg held himself a waffle party in Missoula this past Friday. Montana's lone Congressman attended a news conference at the Poverello Center to claim credit for securing a $285,000 appropriation for the Pov in the FY09 Approps bill.

In a statement, Rehberg said: "I'm happy I was able to secure federal assistance for the Poverello Center."

But here's the funny thing, Rehberg voted against the 2009 Appropriations Bill that contained said "federal assistance." Rehberg is not keeping his no vote a secret. His reasoning is spelled out clearly: "Congress is spending too much and racking up a huge debt."

If that's the case, why is the Congressman traveling the state bragging about the money he just secured? And since when do politicians vote against projects they claim credit for?

Earlier this month, Rehberg also voted against the recovery/jobs bill. A few days later, Rehberg tried to justify his no vote while bragging about the bill's benefits to a Montana Rural Water Systems conference in Great Falls.

Look, we know he's got a big state to represent, but that doesn't mean he has to talk and vote out of both sides of his mouth, he could just put on his big boy pants and say, "I voted against the jobs bill and the budget for next year -- and against all the spending for those Montana projects -- because I think it is a waste of money."

I mean, his hypocrisy is bad enough that John McCain labeled one Rehberg's earmarks -- $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center -- as the 7th porkiest item in the approps bill.

http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=1961&category=Earmarks&type=Project

Yea it is a bad thing that not enough Republicans can be conservative! 40% of the earmarks by republicans is unexusable. They should loose their jobs along with the Democrats who put in 60% of the pork!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Was it possible for Obama to Veto the whole thing, and have them go back and re-write it?

So they can all get another shot at putting in more pork :???: Its these Omnibus Budget bills that when piddled around with- and then have to get passed at the last minute that ends up with all the bad law being stuck into- like Foreclosure Phils Enron Loophole Commodity package...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Yep, they all do it, and some on here keep making excuses for them.

Yep-- and its too bad a Repub took the line item veto to court and got it ruled unconstitutional... :wink:

The line item veto law was a Republican sponsored law to start with. :roll: EVEN wih a Dem President in office at the time...

Byrd was the first to take it to court first (last time I checked he was a Dem) and his case set precendence (he won) before the Clinton vs New York City case in which Guiliani was working for New York.... and had no other option but to do what his State required him to do.

In other words, it was not the Republicans that took it to court, it was the CITY OF NEW YORK.......... Guliani just happened to be a Republican that was doing his job.......

That said..............Zer0 proclaimed he was going to take this budget "Line By Line" and eliminate all the fat.......which he could have done by instructing his Democratically controlled Congress to do before it hit his desk.........

The Line Item Veto ruling says that the PRESIDENT cannot pull legislation out of a Bill "Line By Line" after being approved, but does not prohibit Congress to pull it out before it reaches the Presidents desk.

You are a very insidious obstruction to the truth. :roll: :roll:

A liar too.
 
Top