Difference between revisions of "Talk:Backdoor spending authority"
From Conservapedia
(comment) |
m (typo) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | If you are going to lift language verbatim from a website, you probably should at least footnote it, or better put it into quotation marks. The budget committee may have one view of "backdoor spending authority", the appropriations committee a second view, the authorization committee a third view, and of course, the | + | If you are going to lift language verbatim from a website, you probably should at least footnote it, or better put it into quotation marks. The budget committee may have one view of "backdoor spending authority", the appropriations committee a second view, the authorization committee a third view, and of course, the executive branch a fourth view. If spending authority is included in an authorization bill, the sponsors of the provision (as well as the executive branch) would not consider it to be a "backdoor" item. How "backdoor" could it be if the Congress votes to approve it and the President signs it? The only people who are bypassed are the appropriations committee staff. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 17:59, 10 January 2013 (EST) |
Revision as of 18:00, 10 January 2013
If you are going to lift language verbatim from a website, you probably should at least footnote it, or better put it into quotation marks. The budget committee may have one view of "backdoor spending authority", the appropriations committee a second view, the authorization committee a third view, and of course, the executive branch a fourth view. If spending authority is included in an authorization bill, the sponsors of the provision (as well as the executive branch) would not consider it to be a "backdoor" item. How "backdoor" could it be if the Congress votes to approve it and the President signs it? The only people who are bypassed are the appropriations committee staff. Wschact 17:59, 10 January 2013 (EST)
