View Single Post
Old 03-26-2009, 18:39   #8
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pulsar View Post
Just an estimate, but it sounds like the money was turned down to score political points. With the rampant spending by the Obama administration, they can use something like this and claim they are being fiscally responsible.
Pulsar--

I like the logic on scoring political points but I don't know whom the SecHS is trying to impress.

She spoke of "budget neutral" changes for "activities that are less urgent." I think that shift in focus--rather than declining additional funding--is the bell she's trying to ring.

ETA

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said
Quote:
I’m not certain that just plusing-up the budget is the way to go[.] I think what [Napolitano] has offered is a reasonable approach to the situation. She’s saying, ‘Let me look at the budget, we’ll assign some people, and if we do that and it doesn’t work, then we’ll [ask for more money].’
I'd be curious to know if he brought the same sensibility to the table when the stimulus bill designated $2,433,551,064 for his state. (Source is here.)

Last edited by Sigaba; 03-26-2009 at 18:44.
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote