(no subject)
First, a link: http://appropriations.house.gov/FY2009_consolidated.shtml
That lets you look at the "FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act", which is the $410 billion bill that Obama signed is/will sign in to law really soon. The one they're talking about on the news, with all of the earmarks and whatnot. I skimmed it, and I found the following:
a: the difference in spending this bill shows from last year's appropriations is $31.23 billion. So, that's quite a bit more, about an 8% increase from last year;
2: the difference in spending from what the Bush administration requested was a mere $13.24 billion, and;
III: the huge amount of earmarks totals in the realm of $5.5 billion, making it less than 2% of the overall bill.
But you don't have to take MY word for it; go to the link about and add it up yourself. Then consider why, when discussing this bill, the media has left out the context that these numbers provide.
That lets you look at the "FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act", which is the $410 billion bill that Obama signed is/will sign in to law really soon. The one they're talking about on the news, with all of the earmarks and whatnot. I skimmed it, and I found the following:
a: the difference in spending this bill shows from last year's appropriations is $31.23 billion. So, that's quite a bit more, about an 8% increase from last year;
2: the difference in spending from what the Bush administration requested was a mere $13.24 billion, and;
III: the huge amount of earmarks totals in the realm of $5.5 billion, making it less than 2% of the overall bill.
But you don't have to take MY word for it; go to the link about and add it up yourself. Then consider why, when discussing this bill, the media has left out the context that these numbers provide.