On MSN Today

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately the article said nothing about how the funds associated with the bill were to be spent, nor did it state which spending rules the bill would violate. Without knowing that we don't know if killing the bill was a good thing or a bad thing.
 
It's a classic media tactic: only highlight part of the bill, but do not provide the necessary information to decide on the entire bill.

If they voted for the entire bill, the media would be screaming how the GOP allowed Bambi to be hunted.
 
Obviously, those senators know something about those "conservation" aspects of the bill that we don't know. MSN certainly won't spill the beans if it makes those opposing senators look good. We need to know more.

Look at the politicking going on here as well. The left loves to wrap nasty, unpopular agenda in issues that are politically difficult for conservatives to turn down. It's a loose-loose situation: We loose if it is passed and more government spending is hoisted upon our backs, and we loose if we pass up the chance to hunt in more places, bring in trophies bagged years ago, and our lead ammo is not better protected.

Woody
 
An apology to the other members

I wish to apologize to the other members of this forum for not following proper etiquette in introducing this subject. I was so angry at the article on the MSN site that I forgot to stop and look harder at the source of the material. I also used some symbols to indicate my opinion of our politicians that I should not have use on this forum. So please consider this my formal apology.
 
Wow another article about legislation that doesn't include the bill number. Do the reporters think they can give you a better explanation that if you read the bill yourself?
 
A better article with more clarification
The measure would raise the price of duck stamps, which hunters affix to their hunting licenses, to $25 from $15. Because the federal government uses the proceeds from the stamps to buy wetlands used by waterfowl, the Congressional Budget Office estimated this would mean $132 million in new spending in the next decade.

Sessions argued that this expenditure would violate the Budget Control Act of 2011, which set spending caps on congressional panels including the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the program. “When we make an agreement, I think we ought to adhere to it,” Sessions said.
Click to expand...
 
Whatever the purpose, I object to the Feral Government buying more of our land, even if it is under the guise of preserving wetlands for water foul. Once the Feral Government owns the land, it's a short step to prohibit hunting upon those lands by whatever bureaucracy is "in charge" of those lands.

Woody
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top