Budget, Spending & Taxes
Campaign Finance & Election Reform
Defense & Homeland Security
Education & Labor/Workforce
Energy, Environment, & Federal Lands
Faith & Family
Financial Services, Trade & Commerce
Government Oversight, Waste, Fraud & Abuse
Gulf Coast Hurricanes
Health Care
International Relations
Judiciary & Immigration
Life Issues & Abortion
Social Security & Retirement
War on Terror
RSC Initiatives
|
|||
RSC BLOG
Speaker Pelosi's WRDA Earmark
This week, the Senate will take up the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, which the House passed last month. Should it pass, it will be the most expensive water projects bill that Congress has ever approved. Posted by Brad Dayspring (05-07-2007, 01:06 PM) filed under General Comments Comment by: fishbrake
Nice try but this story has already been debunked. Here's the relevant quote from Brad Benson, special project manager from the Port of San Francisco:
Comment by: Franco Umm...you realize, of course, that these improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco, and not the Pelosi's...and that 5400 feet is more than a mile away, making any benefit from these improvements miniscule, at best.
Comment by: Finns
Um, DUH - San Francisco cannot request the funding, only a federal representative can. Speaker Pelosi did, as her office has stated. Whether they asked her to do it is irrelevant to House Rules.
Comment by: mikey Hey Finns- Ever been to SF? Almost everything is within 2 miles of everything else.
Comment by: USAF_Vet
@Finns
Comment by: Finns
Hey Mikey - whether "everything is within 2 miles of everything else" (It's not, it's approx 12 miles in size) is irrelevant to rules of the House.
Comment by: Jason
Finns - Okay, San Francisco is 7 miles wide and 7 miles long. However, what Mikey has said is basically true. In the context of SF over a mile away does not constitute "nearby." Additionally, we are talking about residential rental properties, which in SF are already wildly overvalued. The idea that "port improvements" (I haven't seen it described anywhere what exactly that entails) would affect the rental value of those properties is pretty much ridiculous on it's face.
Comment by: Heh
this is asshattery . The truth is 25 mil is a drop in the bucket. SF and the bay area has seen little of the money sent to DC from SF constituents and its about time.
Comment by: heh
http://tinyurl.com/23v2z4
Comment by: LarryE
Finns -
Comment by: Franco
Umm...you left out this part:
Comment by: jim
Oh, come on.
Comment by: Marty
Brad Benson, the special project manager of the Port of San Francisco when asked said,
Comment by: Bobby
This just in:
Comment by: sf
Anyone who knows San Francisco will laugh at this. The rental properties are near Telegraph Hill while the waterfront they're talking about is south of the bay bridge near the ball park. The two areas have no influence at all on each other.
Comment by: uncle Bill
Finns---you must have been a second Lieutenant in the army, because it is obvious you never learned to read a map. The Pier in question is being improved to operate as a Cruise ship docking terminal--something San Francisco has been working on for a number of years. It has no relation to any of the office buildings that are across the street (The Embarcadero) from the the pier. Secondly, the office buildings are several blocks inland from the waterfront, and any monies spent on the pier will have
Comment by: Jim "Uncle Bill" - that's nice, smear and degrade our soldiers. Really appropriate.
Comment by: The Guy from TN
SF -
Comment by: Aaron
Next time, try inches. It makes Pelosi's actions seem even more outrageous.
Comment by: Sharon Dupree If a story is going to be reported, then report all of the facts instead of those most likely to help one particular side. The writers of this blog by not checking the facts of the Washington Post writer, are engaging in the same type of dishonesty they are, themselves, accusing Pelosi of. It's been confirmed that the Port of San Francisco contacted Pelosi. Why don't they call them? Are we so hateful in our politics that we spread lies just like we accuse others of doing? When you get a bunch of people together who don't tell the truth, unless it's an opportune time to do so, when do you know when they're lying? You Don't.
Submit a Comment |
|||
|