House Democrats propose $410B spending bill

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

So do they want Obama to fail or just think he's er, testicularly challenged and easily rolled?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-Democrats-propose-410B-apf-14450221.html

House Democrats propose $410B spending bill
House bill to keep govt. running totals $410 billion, features thousands of pet projects
David Espo, AP Special Correspondent
Tuesday February 24, 2009, 8:50 am EST
Yahoo! Buzz Print WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats unveiled a $410 billion spending bill on Monday to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year, setting up the second political struggle over federal funds in less than a month with Republicans.

The measure includes thousands of earmarks, the pet projects favored by lawmakers but often criticized by the public in opinion polls. There was no official total of the bill's earmarks, which accounted for at least $3.8 billion.

The legislation, which includes an increase of roughly 8 percent over spending in the last fiscal year, is expected to clear the House later in the week.

Democrats defended the spending increases, saying they were needed to make up for cuts enacted in recent years or proposed a year ago by then-President George W. Bush in health, education, energy and other programs.

Republicans countered that the spending in the bill far outpaced inflation, and amounted to much higher increases when combined with spending in the stimulus legislation that President Barack Obama signed last week. In a letter to top Democratic leaders, the GOP leadership called for a spending freeze, a step they said would point toward a "new standard of fiscal discipline."

Either way, the bill advanced less than one week after Obama signed the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that all Republicans in Congress opposed except for three moderate GOP senators.

Apart from spending, the legislation provides Democrats in Congress and Obama an opportunity to reverse Bush-era policy on selected issues.

It loosens restrictions on travel to Cuba, as well as the sale of food and medicine to the communist island-nation.

In another change, the legislation bans Mexican-licensed trucks from operating outside commercial zones along the border with the United States. The Teamsters Union, which supported Obama's election last year, hailed the move.

The Bush administration backed a pilot program to permit up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican motor carriers access to U.S. roads.

The legislation covers programs for numerous Cabinet-level and other agencies, and takes the place of regular annual spending bills that did not pass last year as a result of a deadlock between the Bush administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Congressional expenses are included. The bill provides $500,000 for what is described as a Senate "pilot program" that will defray the cost of mass mail postcards to households notifying them of a nearby town meeting to be attended by any senator.

**reds8n**

In another change, the legislation bans Mexican-licensed trucks from operating outside commercial zones along the border with the United States. The Teamsters Union, which supported Obama's election last year, hailed the move.

Que ? Is Mexican shipping a big problem then ?

**malfred**

Obama should veto this just to screw with the Dems. "Here's for screwing up
the last one, fellas."

**Frazzled**

Yes, safety wise, but that has nothing to do with Teamsters (by the way that violates NAFTA-trade fight. FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!)

**reds8n**

So....they'll ban them on safety grounds then ?

I assume you have certain standards for vehicle safety/quality. Over here drivers are restricted to only driving X far or for Y amount of time by law...... I guess given you being somewhat larger than us any such restrictions would be not only less but also more awkward to enforce

**Frazzled**

Under NAFTA, the safety regs on transport effectively do not apply to the Mexican trucks (and inversely if US trucks went south). Mexican trucking standards are, well nonexistent. This was an issue when signed.

Again it doesn't have jack to do with why the Teamsters want it out.

**dietrich**

The US has higher safety standards for cars and trucks than Mexico. I don't know if it is still the cae, but as an example, US cars must have safety glass for the windshields (so if the glass is broken, it stays more or less as a single mass instead of becoming a thousand shards) and Mexico allows pane glass (which would shatter and become a thousand shards).

Ever seen a movie where the hero kicks out a windshield to escape the car as it sinks, is crushed, etc.? It holds together - that's safety glass. But, if a baseball is thrown through a household window, it shatters - that's pane glass (or a cricket ball for you Brits).

**reds8n**

Yeah, we have/get similar issues over here to do with continental european drivers/vehicles.

I'm surprised, even given NAFTA, that there isn't grounds to clamp down on foreign trucks/drivers still ?

**Frazzled**

Its a grey area-this is from the way back machine to law school, but in essence you can only bust the drivers for clear violations- the same as any other moving vehicle (tailouts out that sort of thing).

Again the Teamsters look at this (rightly) as competition. Teamsters are a key party of the Democratic party-hence this coming up again.

**Ensis Ferrae**

reds8n wrote:So....they'll ban them on safety grounds then ?

I assume you have certain standards for vehicle safety/quality. Over here drivers are restricted to only driving X far or for Y amount of time by law...... I guess given you being somewhat larger than us any such restrictions would be not only less but also more awkward to enforce

the US "Long-Haul" trucking industry do have similar regs. They can only drive something like 350-400 miles, or 14 hours a day. The truckers have to keep a log in their trucks, which can be inspected by law enforcement officials, or truck stop officials to ensure that they are following the rules.

here in the states, we have long haul truckers, and city truckers. generally speaking the city drivers stay in one somewhat small area of a city/county/state. whereas long haulers cover multiple states. the short haul, local drivers dont have the same kinds of regs that the long-haulers do.

**ShumaGorath**

Its good to see that restrictions are finally being loosened with cuba. Embargoes only make sense so long as they make sense, and that one hasn't had a reason for existing for a long time.

I love the right wing selective memory when it comes to spending provisions. Its just dandy to give billions to iraq, but they'll be damned if america sees a dime. This article is pretty biased in its presentation.

**Frazzled**

AP newswire is using right wing selective memory? There's opne I haven't heard in a while.

Besides why do I give a censored what the Right wing wants? We're talking NOW. Last I saw the Democrats control Congress. They won as they like to say now. They own it and the problems.

**Thalor**

Just how much can money can we blow? This is going to be americas "lost decade" (or two)