A Good Introduction to the Congressional Appropriations Process

This is a good introduction to the Congressional Appropriations Process.  If you ever wondered how Congress decides on how much they will spend, this is a good initial way to learn about it.

 

Download now or preview on posterous

Congressional_Appropriations_Process_-_An_Introduction.pdf (687 KB)

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

The Gathering Revolt Against Government Spending (from the Washington Examiner)

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
May 23, 2010

This month three members of Congress have been beaten in their bids for re-election -- a Republican senator from Utah, a Democratic congressman from West Virginia and a Republican-turned-Democrat senator from Pennsylvania. Their records and their curricula vitae are different. But they all have one thing in common: They are members of an Appropriations Committee.Like most appropriators, they have based much of their careers on bringing money to their states and districts. There is an old saying on Capitol Hill that there are three parties -- Democrats, Republicans and appropriators. One reason that it has been hard to hold down government spending is that appropriators of both parties have an institutional and political interest in spending.

Their defeats are an indication that spending is not popular this year.

Repealing the 17th Amendment or Imposing Term Limits?

Here in Idaho there has been a recent dustup regarding the 17th Amendment and comments made by two Republican candidates for Congress. (Idaho Press-Tribune article, editorial) This made me realize here was one area of the Constitution that I was not familiar with the original intent of.  So I did some research on the topic and decided that the time had come to seriously look at repealing the 17^th Amendment or, at the very least, constitutionally mandating term limits.

H4892/S3081 Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, & Prosecution Act. A Congressional Bill That Should Raise Concerns.

This legislation sets forth the parameters in which suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents can be held and interrogated. The bill allows for both U.S. Citizens and non-citizens to fall under the provisions of this legislation. Attacks or the purposeful and material support of such attacks that occur in either a domestic or foreign location against American interests, or American coalition partners, are covered by this bill. The definitions of a terrorist act, terrorist, and unprivileged enemy belligerent are also laid out.  The legislation is aimed at “high value” detainees but the definition of a “high value” detainee can be construed to cover a large swath of detainees both current and future.  Also included is a provision for the detention without trial or charges until the ceasing of hostilities in which the detainee was involved or materially supported. 

Thus this legislation relates to both domestic and foreign individuals.  If I am reading the bill right, a citizen who is accused of either committing or supporting an act of violence against the United States or its coalition partners can be held indefinitely without charges or trial.  Therefore, there is a potential conflict with current Constitutional protections and due process.  The section about purposefully and materially supporting such actions is not well spelled out and could be potentially construed to be a variety of activities, including political positions, statements, speeches, etc.  Despite this bill being pushed in increase the security of Americans, the provisions within it have the potential to be used to quash political opposition in the name of controlling/fighting domestic terrorists.  I know it sounds conspiratorial, but that possibility remains due to the legislation’s language.

Both House and Senate bills are virtually identical leaving little need for a conference committee, should they pass their respective chambers as is, so the bill has a better chance of sliding straight through with little in the way of resistance or speed bumps. This piece of legislation will be passed in the name of protecting America from terrorists. However, in my opinion, the justifiable actions to invoke the use of this legislation are a bit sketchy and left intentionally vague.  The big question is whether Obama would sign such a piece of legislation into law should it reach his desk.