by INFORUM
Failed bill in U.S. Senate contained flood-control funds for area
December 17, 2010 at 6:00 pm in INFORUM
WASHINGTON A catchall spending bill dropped Thursday in the U.S. Senate contained funding for several North Dakota projects, including almost $9.5 million for Fargo flood control. Continue Reading
It will be interesting to see what Hoeven and Berg can do for North Dakota.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It will be interesting to see what they can do for the entire country. Is flood protection needed? Yes. But is it a National priority? What can we afford to pay for as a nation now and not put on the backs of our grand children? We can not continue to spend money they way we have been. Belts need to be tightened. Can we really say, “not our belts. Our project is more important”.?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmmm, so what you are saying is you hate everyone that lives here, because you don’t want flood protection. Your freaking classy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmmmm. So you hate kids because you don’t care if we leave them a ton of debt as long as your current wants and desires are satisfied. You’re freaking classless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The point of flood control is to reduce cost over the long-term. What we can’t afford is $100-$200 million every year for flood fighting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
True to that, and it looks like another 200 million is goning to be needed again this year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Flood control project require a positive benefit balance to be federally funded.
So overal, they save money.
Hard to see where avoiding such expenditures helps the grandchildren.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What is $9.5 mil compared to the flood control needed? Not to mention to a state with almost a billion dollar surplus. We complain about all the welfare giving to the lazy and undeserving. Right now we are the undeserving. The nation as a whole is in shambles, we need to be the ones to say no. We talk about helping out ones neighbor but we complain about this little amount. Not that $9.5 mill is small dollars to me but in the grand scheme of the government it is like a dollar to you and me!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Can we really say, ‘not our belts. Our project is more important’.? [sic]”
That’s exactly what Senators Thune [R-SD] and Cornyn [R-TX] said the other day. Apparently their pork is more valuable than pork in other states.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/12/16/132083977/reporters-jump-senators-for-perceived-earmark-hypocrisy
And just an FYI, government belts are being tightened. California cut 32,400 jobs in September alone (the most recent month I can find data for). They also cut their higher education budget by $1.7 BILLION dollars this year (clearly a wise long-term financial decision). Minnesota’s university system has a week-long forced furlough for all employees (Dec. 24 through Jan 3). They estimate it will save a whopping $400,000 dollars in heating and salary. (No consideration is taken, of course, about the financial impact to the state and the university in lost research). Local governments nation wide are cutting about 50,000 jobs per month in education. The federal government cut 159,000 jobs in September a lone (again, the most recent data I can find. 121,000 jobs cut in August and 202,000 federal jobs cut in July).
Long story short: It’s quite laughable that faux-conservatives are so angry at the government for not tightening the belt when they are doing so at an impressive (scary) rate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From the Washington Times “The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/
I can’t find any backup to your other statements. The largest number of California layoffs I could confirm was 5,000. Can you provide references?
From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget , Total Federal Budget Outlays:
2008 $2.9T
2009 $2.1T
2010 $3.6T
2011 $3.8T
I find it laughable that you think the government is tightening its belt at a scary rate.
The federal government needs to spend less, everyone needs to pay more in taxes. And the delusional on the far left and on the far right need to be told to shut-up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The catch-all spending bill that was dropped contained nearly $1.3 trillion worth of projects, and was 1,924-pages long. The package would normally have consisted of 12 separate bills, but democrats combined them and tried to push it through Congress before new members are seated and those who lost in the November elections are unable to vote.
Republicans will take control of the House, and the Senate will still be under Democratic control, but will be more narrowly divided. This will bring changes to the appropriations process and means that spending bills will be looked at more closely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What being closely divided has meant in the past is that earmarks increase in order to get votes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Exactly. And not only that, but the only reason the Democrats combined everything is that Republicans are filibustering nearly every bill that comes along, regardless of its contents. They are simply being obstructionist to try and gain some political advantage in the intermediate term. Democrats are left with little recourse but to pack as much as they can into each bill in hopes that they can overcome filibuster with the help of a few Republicans who have a conscience. Pretty morally and ethically reprehensible if you ask me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
True, but remember the Democrats could have brought this to the floor months ago. This was their tactic for a last second vote to put pressure on the Republicans. The Democrats have been in control of the House and Senate. The party in control sets the timing for when bills are brought to the floor for debate/voting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I see the standing rock sioux were supposed to get over 3 million dollars more as well. That’s a riot. They claim to be their own nation, allow no white man influence and obey none of our laws, pay no taxes, yet are always the first in line for handouts whether welfare or these types of projects. That’s a little bit too much diversity for me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We have treaties with the tribes. It was government that forced the Indians to accept the terms of those treaties. The tribes had very little room for negotiation and were facing genocide. The government has failed again and again to deliver what the tribes were promised. The reservation system is a barbaric institution and had resulted in many problems for the native peoples. Starting with making it much more difficult to assimilate into the greater society. I dont believe in the reservation system. It would be best if the tribes and the Government would find a better way to address the issue. But that said we owe a debt to the native peoples of this land. We have never lived up to this debt. Will we ever????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Opinionated, the fact that ignorant people like you are allowed to comment on anything is too much diversity for me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So only opinions that are aligned with yours are worthy of being heard?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dang it! If that would have passed, it would have bought my vote. Looks like the democrats missed out. Stupid greedy republicans not giving Fargo some free stuff.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0