Something I didn't know about the $87 billion, though I probably should have. [View All]

[MH1]

Okay, I admit it, I wasn't paying quite as much attention as I should have been at the time it was passed. And since then I haven't quite caught up to the nuances. So I found this interesting, from another DU post (which is worthy of a recommend anyway, imo):


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x254955

...
In the original Iraq spending bill, which earmarked the first $87bn to go down the drain, there was a provision for the general accounting office to keep a check on things {procurement contracts for Iraq}, but that provision was stripped from the bill - even though the Senate had originally voted for it 97 to 0.

...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1983817,00.html

I've always heard that the key difference on the two bills was that the one JK voted for would have been paid for by rolling back the tax cuts on the top 2%, while the one he voted against would not have been paid for; that's a good enough reason, but...

If I am understanding the above correctly, then to me that is a more compelling reason for voting for the first and against the second. But, perhaps it would be even harder to explain to the average voter.

Thoughts?