SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,592
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: +
Talk:Spending Authority (view source)
Revision as of 22:49, January 10, 2013
, 22:49, January 10, 2013let's keep the separate. "Backdoor" has a negative connotation
:(a) merge contents and redirect of this namespace with Backdoor spending authority; or
:(a) merge contents and redirect of this namespace with Backdoor spending authority; or
:(b) move this namespace to Backdoor spending authority and merge contents of the two. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 13:31, 10 January 2013 (EST)
:(b) move this namespace to Backdoor spending authority and merge contents of the two. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 13:31, 10 January 2013 (EST)
I disagree. For example the MWR of each branch of the Armed Services have Spending Authority, but do not work from appropriated funds. They are supported by user fees. There is nothing "backdoor" about this. Various ancillary services are perfectly legal, but are expected to be self-supporting. Another example is the PX on a military base. Such operations are expected to be self-supporting and do not represent the spending of taxpayer money. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 17:49, 10 January 2013 (EST)