In response to
"even at worst in 2005, before earmark reform, they only cost $47 billion total -- (link)"
by
charlie
|
I would like it to be zero. If it has to be sneaked into a bill then that means they know it wouldn't pass.
Posted by
Bacon (aka redmond)
Jul 2 '13, 17:47
|
47 billion here, 47 billion there. Uh, we are running deficits. It ALL matters.
I know it's the principle of the thing. Not doing the math but how much money would that be for each tax payer if they just split it up and cut us a check.
|
Responses:
|