Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Senate Subcommittee on Irony - Senator Harkin Chair

Came across this item on under the Last Major Action summary for yesterday:
24. S.AMDT.179 to H.R.1 To eliminate unnecessary spending.
Sponsor: Sen Vitter, David [LA] (introduced 2/3/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2009 Senate amendment proposed (on the floor)
Wouldn't that cover the whole bill? (OK, that was too easy.) Seriously, though, wouldn't it be easier to just pick out the necessary spending rather than try to identify and eliminate all of the unnecessary parts? Of course this is the problem, one Senator's earmark is anothers essential infrastructure spending. What we really need is the legislative equivalent of Maxwell's Demon. Of course, I doubt the one hundred aged sages of that august body have contrived to find a cure for entropy.

I am sure no irony was intended, but directly above Senator Vitter's amendment was this curious entry:
23. S.AMDT.178 to H.R.1 To provide an additional $6,500,000,000 to the National Institutes of Health for biomedical research.
Sponsor: Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] (introduced 2/3/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 178 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
These guys can't seem to make up their minds about just which way they ought to be moving with this.

Vitter's ammendment includes this language:
(2) PROHIBITED USES.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming pool, or Mob Museum.
Note to Sen. Vitter: The conservative blogosphere is never going to rival the left if you go around eliminating the inane funding requests that are injected into these spending bills. They are a blogging goldmine.

At least I got that Mob Museum post up before his ammendment hit the floor.


Steve said...

Hilarious! The only trouble with a mob museum in Las Vegas is that it would have to hold two-thirds of the congressman.

Steve said...

What I meant to say was that it would have to be big enough to hold two-third s of the congress