Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Woodstock Concert Museum:
D.C. Has Plenty of Money
So along comes U.S.A Today reporting that $1 Million in Federal Funds is available to help build a Woodstock Concert Museum:
Days after a Senate committee approved $1 million for a Woodstock concert museum, the project's Republican billionaire backer and his family contributed $29,200 to help the Democrats who requested the money, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer.
It's neither illegal nor unusual for contributors to benefit from congressionally directed spending known as earmarks. But the timing of the June donations is grist for critics who see a link between legislative pet projects and campaign money.
"If you don't help their campaign, they're not going to be as friendly with the earmarks next time," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who will seek to amend a spending bill this week to redirect the Woodstock money to educate homeless children.
The New York senators put their names jointly on all their earmark requests, but Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines said that this one came through Schumer's office. Of the donations, he said, "One thing had nothing to do with the other."
Has Cluck ever fully answered and accounted for his role when his staffers illegally obtained the Credit Report of Michael Steele? It all starts from the Top Down, as the Libs like to say about Bush. Funny how that doesn't apply to Cluck and his office staff illegally obtaining Steele's Credit Bureau Report .
Well, I'm sure Rev. Gisher and DaveAwayFromHome will no doubt think that $1 Million on a museum to honor unwashed, smelly, pot-smoking, trippin'-out-on-bad cid hippies is money well spent, right guys?
Earmarks? Geez, I thought the Dems promised to do away with those. Guess not. For once it's not about "the children," it's "for the aging hippies," and how can that possibly be bad or even remotely labelled Federal money stupidly spent?
that may be the funniest thing i ever saw. so you found a new source eh? not sharing with friends?
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.