BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Califbill

"BAR" wrote in message ...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:02:12 -0500, ESAD wrote:

Perhaps he wants a new book, not something he has already read or
something he has no interest in. I know the e-reader people I know
complain the library E book selection is limited and the "good" books
are on a waiting list. If you are one of those people who want to read
the best sellers, they really want you to buy it

I'm not a fan of ebooks, but my wife is. She downloads a couple a week
from our local public library, and also downloads "freebies" via her
Amazon "prime" account. But she still visits the library to borrow
traditional books, too. So do I.

It seems like all of the "hot books are fiction and I don't read that
anymore. Real life is unbelievably interesting enough for me.

As some may have guessed I am a Thomas junkie, actually reading the
bills few of our representatives and none of the media ever read.

I found this gem in the first "Sandy bill" (H.R.1)

"For an additional amount for `Procurement of Ammunition, Army',
$1,310,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015, for
necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy:"

Huh? Why does the Army need a million three of extra ammunition "for
necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy:"?

How many of the survivors do they think they will need to shoot?

It is that **** that makes Boehner look correct in not taking the bill
seriously.

The cost of purchasing ammo and who is purchasing it is interesting.
However, when you get down to the brass tacks of per officer amounts it
really is negligible.

---------------------

But why is it in an unrelated to the army bill? There were 3 major items
that really screwed up our spending. 2 can be fixed. 1st is Base Line
Budgeting. 2nd and may be actually 1st, is the rule change when Nixon was
avoiding Impeachment, to allow amendments unrelated to a bill to be attached
to a bill. Why you can have an amendment for spending $500 million on a
museum attached to a transportation bill. (just an example. do not know of
that high of an amount for a museum being attached). 3rd was the ruling by
the Supremes that the POTUS had to spend any money allocated. Old days, the
Executive branch just did not spend some of the frivolous money allocated.
Still think it is a bad ruling and encroaches on separation of powers
between the branches.