Take Back the Senate
Keep the House
TOSS OUT THE DASCHLE/CLINTON DEMOCRATS!
Posted on 09/17/2002 7:50:27 AM PDT by PhiKapMom
DEMOCRATS ARE "PLAYING POLITICS" WITH AMERICA'S DEFENSE
Democrats Are Stalling On Defense Appropriations Until Republicans Agree To Democrats' Out-Of-Control Deficit Spending Demands
___________________________________________________________________
PRESIDENT BUSH IS URGING CONGRESS TO SEND HIM THE DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL FIRST!
President Bush Has Called On Congress To Stop "Playing Politics" With Our National Security And Pass Defense Appropriations First. "I have submitted a budget to the United States Congress which makes a priority of our national defense, and I expect the appropriations process to pass the defense bill first. In times of war, I ought to have the defense appropriations bill on my desk as soon as possible. We don't need any people playing politics with the defense of the United States of America."
(President Bush, Remarks At The Heather Wilson For Congress Luncheon In Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 29, 2002)
President Bush Wants Congress To Pass Defense Appropriations First To Fund The Nation's Military At War. "The history of the United States Congress is such that they hold back the defense appropriations bill to the last minute. That's bad policy. It's bad policy in times of peace, and it's terrible policy in times of war. I expect and hope the first appropriation bill to my desk is to fund the United States military."
(President Bush, Remarks At A Fundraising Dinner for Senatorial Candidate James M. Talent In St. Louis, Missouri, March 18, 2002)
Senate Republicans Have Called On Daschle And His Democrats To Make Defense Appropriations A Priority. "It is imperative that we demonstrate our support for our Commander-in-Chief and for our military at this time. We strongly believe that the Senate should consider the Defense Appropriations bill first when we begin deliberation of the annual appropriations bills, and we respectfully request that you schedule it accordingly."
(Office Of The Republican Leader, Letter To Majority Leader Daschle, March 19, 2002)
DEMOCRATS ARE PLAYING POLITICS WITH DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS . . . AGAIN
In 2001, Senate Democrats Played Partisan Politics With Defense Appropriations, Stalling On The Measure More Than Two Months After The Fiscal Year Deadline. "Senate Majority Leader Daschle and Appropriations Chairman Byrd appear to be setting up a game of political chicken with Republicans over the $7.5 billion homeland security spending package they now plan to attach to the FY02 Defense appropriations bill . . . . Byrd announced . . . he would add the extra $7.5 billion to the Defense bill, which is already carrying a $20 billion anti-terrorism supplemental. . . . Daschle indicated he and Byrd might try to make it more difficult for Republicans to challenge the add-on, saying, 'There is a possibility of simply supplanting part of the defense appropriations bill with homeland security and moving that supplanted part outside the defense bill. And that's one way to address it, if you catch my drift. . . . You call it an emergency.'"
("Daschle, Byrd Move To Win GOP Votes On More Spending," National Journal's CongressDaily, November 29, 2001)
In 2002, Our National Security Is Once Again Being Subjugated To Political Maneuvering And Self-Interest Politics. "To resolve a conflict between the administration and Congress over spending levels, lawmakers made a list of $5.1 billion in projects contingent on Mr. Bush's declaring them emergency spending in 30 days. To maintain pressure, Congress said that Mr. Bush would have to accept all or none of the projects, that he could not pick and choose among ones he supported and those he did not. 'Those are the rules they placed upon my administration,' Mr. Bush said today. 'I understand their position. And today, they're going to learn mine. We'll spend none of it.'"
(Carl Hulse, "Bush And The Economy: Spending Cutbacks," The New York Times, August 14, 2002)
PRESIDENT BUSH WANTS DEMOCRATS TO PRACTICE FISCAL RESTRAINT, WHILE DEMOCRATS BUST PRESIDENT BUSH'S BUDGET AND SPEND AMERICA INTO DEFICITS ONCE AGAIN
Despite President Bush's Requests To Curtail Spending, Senate Democrats Are Holding Out For $11 Billion More In Deficit Spending. "House and Senate negotiators have yet to agree on final versions of any of the bills, even though the 2003 fiscal year begins Oct. 1. Bush and House GOP leaders want to limit the bills' cumulative price tag to $759 billion, while Democats in the Senate want about $11 billion more. The 13 bills cover about one-third of the $2.1 trillion annual federal budget, covering everything but automatically paid benefits like Social Security and interest on the federal debt."
(H. Josef Herbert, "Energy, Water Spending Bill Advances In House With More Money Than Bush Wanted," The Associated Press, September 5, 2002)
President Bush Called On Daschle's Democrat Senate To Practice The Same Spending Responsibility That Characterized The House Budget And Spending Bills. "[T]he Congress must restrain other Government spending so we can return to a balanced budget soon. The House has shown that a responsible budget can be enacted, and the Senate should follow suit. . . . With our Nation now at war, now is not the time for unnecessary spending on lower priority items. The House bill is a successful model for budget and spending bills: Fund our most basic priorities without increasing the deficit or undermining our efforts to return to a balanced budget."
(President Bush, Statement On House Of Representatives Action On Appropriations Legislation, May 24, 2002)
President Bush Vowed To Enforce Spending Restraint If Congress Does Not Practice Fiscal Responsibility. "President Bush said . . . that he would not spend $5.1 billion approved by Congress last month for domestic security, the military and a variety of other initiatives, saying reduced spending would help stabilize the economy. 'More money spent in Washington means less money in the hands of American families and entrepreneurs, less money in the hands of risk takers and job creators . . . .'"
(Carl Hulse, "Bush And The Economy: Spending Cutbacks," The New York Times, August 14, 2002)
The House And Senate Have Each Passed A Version Of H.R. 5010, "Making Appropriations For The Department Of Defense For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2003." While the House attempted to adhere to the President's call for fiscal responsibility in allocating funds, the Senate provided approximately $700 million more than the House. The measure was sent to conference for reconciliation on September 10, 2002.
(H.R. 5010, House Vote #270: Adopted 413-18: R 218-1; D 194-16; I 1-1, June 27, 2002; H.R. 5010, Senate Vote #204: Adopted 95-3: R 46-2; D 48-1; I 1-0, August 1, 2002)
The Senate Democrat Spending Spree Is Delaying Defense Appropriations And Threatening National Security. "[T]he inability to come to terms with a top-line number is not simply slowing the harder-to-pass domestic bills. It is also having an impact on the ability to conference the Defense and Military Construction measures. The Senate has allocated nearly $1.2 billion more for those two bills than the House, leaving House appropriators with the difficult task of trying to accommodate the Senate without starving other spending bills."
("Appropriators Vow Stepped-Up Pace Prior To Possible CR," National Journal's CongressDaily, September 4, 2002)
They were hoping to set-up Bush with this -- it wouldn't even surprise me a bit if they (the Democrats) gave Kofi Annan advice to pass on to Sadaam on how he could get out of the box. Sadaam and the Democrats have at least one thing in common: They consider George Bush the greatest enemy.
So in the Democrat's eyes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." They've been just this ruthless since Bill Clinton took control of the party. Nothing's changed.
If you do that they will not discard it because you have identified yourself as a constituent.
Snuff Saddam, NOW !!
Death To all Tyrant's !!
The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security !!
Molon Labe !!
My question was: "Is Sen. Stabenow going to support the Def. Approp. Bill, as proposed by the President, or is she going to hold up this vital bill in order to extract the extra PORK desired by Daschle & Byrd?
Secondarily, is she going to support the President in dealing with the grave threat posed by Iraq, or is she going to follow the democratice lead, that international support is first necessary, then subordinate our security to the whims of the UN?
Carl Levin's assistant was asked this question: "Does Sen. Levin support the same type of action he voted for in 1998 when Clinton was President against Iraq, or is he NOW waffling and bowing to the Daschle principal of let's ask questions, let's wait for International support, let's wait until after the elections and finally, let's subordinate our security to the whims of the UN?
She responded that she thought he was now in support of the international way and the UN, but transfered me to a mouthpiece for further clarification and naturally the mouthpiece wasn't in and will get back to me.
Neat pic. I made an alteration that strikes my funny bone even more for the irony maybe. Your thoughts?
FGS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.