Difference between revisions of "Talk:Spending Authority"
From Conservapedia
m (→Backdoor) |
(let's keep the separate. "Backdoor" has a negative connotation) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:(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) | ||
Revision as of 22:49, January 10, 2013
Backdoor
Louise Slaughter, former Democrat House Rules Committee Chairwoman who engineered the backdoor reconciliation that passed Obamacare, has this on her website:
- "Spending Authority - The technical term for backdoor spending. [1]"
So, using this definition, which seems credible, I would like to
- (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. 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. Wschact 17:49, 10 January 2013 (EST)
