US Senate Passes Hate Crimes Bill; Faces Veto Over F-22 Funding
Jim Burroway July 17th, 2009
Jim Burroway July 17th, 2009
The U.S. Senate late last night passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to a defense appropriations bill. The Senate approved the bill in a voice vote after voting 63-28 to block a Republican fillibuster of the hate crimes amendment.
However, the hate crimes bill could become collateral damage over a fight for more funding for the F22-fighter program. The White House and the Pentagon is trying to terminate the program which has been plagued with cost overruns and peformance problems, and they oppose the $1.75 billion in funding included in the appropriations bill. President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the bill if it includes that funding. A bipartisan amendment to remove the F-22 funding is scheduled for a vote on Monday.
*****************************************************
Is it just me, or is there something totally bizarre about the fact a hate crimes bill is threatened with a veto because of a very expensive weapons system? Describing it's potential veto fate as 'collateral damage' is totally appropriate given the weapons system is the F22.
This is a pretty diabolical way to have your cake and eat it too. If the Senate wants to maintain any kind of credibility the bipartisan ammendment to remove the F22 funding needs to pass. These issues need to be deliberated on their own merits.
Only in American politics would hate crimes legislation be tacked on to a defense spending bill. Should the ammendment not pass, we might see President Obama have to make a real decision with real consequences. Such as is passage of the Mathew Shepard bill worth 1.75 billion more dollars pumped into a weapons system the DOD no longer supports as they feel the 187 F22's we already have is enough.
Maybe President Obama can think of it as a jobs program, rather than a jobbed bill he has to veto. Or maybe he can let Japan support Lockheed Martin's assembly line by letting them buy the 2oo they've indicated they want to counter the North Korean threat, and the fate of the F22 will be decided elsewhere.
" Only in American politics would hate crimes legislation be tacked on to a defense spending bill."
ReplyDeleteTo be totally honest, it is totally confusing.....
WHY? I can only ask why do they do this?
Why can't they simplify matters and vote on one issue at a time? It seems a game all the time between different "interest" groups.
It seems that no one is the wiser by not having open discussions about issues and tacking unrelated matters onto other matters is a dumb way to do things.
Congress is bought and paid for.
ReplyDeleteOpen discussion, debate?? Ha!
This story is just another example of who really owns this country - hint: not the people.
Orlando, it would seem on the level of issues of money and banks that you are correct. It would seem that the banks have the country in their back pocket.
ReplyDeleteIt seems a no brainer to me that when an economy fails on the scale that it has that certain adjustments need to me made, other than giving money to the ones who helped to pilfer and decimate the economy.
The pain that people are experiencing from this economic mess needs to be addressed. The idea that banks should be able to continue to charge so much interest for a loan for a mortgage and tack on so many fees that are exorbitant needs to be addressed. I am specifically talking about home mortgages and credit card companies.
The problem of debt is tied with the policies of banks and their lending practices. A mortgage loan which takes 30 years to pay off in the end pays off the equivalent of three houses for the price of one. To reduce debt for the consumer and free the home buyer a bank could still make a significant profit by reducing the total amount paid by one-third. That money in turn would be in the hands of the "people" who bought their home and they would have the money they need to purchase necessities and increase their standard of living and be investors as well.
Perhaps I should have said
ReplyDeleteA mortgage loan which takes 30 years to pay off in the end pays off the equivalent of one house for the price of three.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see a bank start up that would compete with the old banks that would reduce the profit of a mortgage loan by one-third over the life of the loan.
ReplyDeleteThere would be a mortgage boom and the old banks would have to reform or be put out of business.
People could pay off their debts.
Money would flow again. People would be empowered more and money would be less in the hands of a few very wealthy bankers who are currently enabled to buy politicians.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY COLLEEN!
ReplyDeleteDoes everyone here really need a lecture on the time value of money?
ReplyDeleteGiven the choice between $300,000 today, and, let's say, $310,000 30 years from now, which would you pick?
Would you really be making a "profit" of $10,000 by waiting 30 years to get the larger sum of money.
Yes, banks make profit by lending money out. It's how they survive, but pretending that there's no such thing as "compounding interest rates" is simply madness.
Also, American politics is a fit of madness in itself, but I think everyone's in agreement on that topic.