Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (91267)	12/8/2006 10:53:53 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360967

I agree. I don't get excited by the rest. Clark, maybe.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (91267)	12/8/2006 11:05:41 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360967

I would love a Gore/Obama ticket. Elder statesman with rising young star. I'm not excited about anyone but Gore either. I'd vote for the others but not be as involved.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (91267)	12/8/2006 12:58:43 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 360967

Iraq Study Group: The Overlooked Recommendation David Wallechinsky 12.08.2006 The Iraq Study Group certainly got its 24 hours of media attention. But for all of the coverage, there is one really good recommendation that was all but ignored. This would be Recommendation #72, the introduction to which begins, "The public interest is not well served by the government's preparation, presentation, and review of the budget for the war in Iraq." The Iraq Study Group points out that "most of the costs of the war show up not in the normal budget request but in requests for emergency supplemental appropriations." Whereas the House and Senate Armed Services committees spend most of the year studying and debating the normal Pentagon budget, emergency supplemental appropriations bypass these committees and are rushed through the Congressional process. In addition, the Bush administration presents its Iraq budgetary requests "in a confusing manner, making it difficult for both the general public and members of Congress to understand the request or to differentiate it from counterterrorism operations around the world or operations in Afghanistan. Detailed analyses by budget experts are needed to answer what should be a simple question: 'How much money is the President requesting for the war in Iraq?'" Thus, Recommendation #72: "Costs for the war in Iraq should be included in the President's annual budget request, starting in FY 2008: the war is in its fourth year, and the normal budget process should not be circumvented. Funding requests for the war in Iraq should be presented clearly to Congress and the American people. Congress must carry out its constitutional responsibility to review budget requests for the war in Iraq carefully and to conduct oversight." Thank you bipartisan group of elders for presenting this recommendation. I hope that the new Democratic-controlled Congress insists that President Bush follow it, under threat of cutting off his funds. My only question is, Why wait until FY 2008; why not do it in January 2007? huffingtonpost.com