In article <1993Apr2.201514.20021@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:  |>  |> In fact, no one has such a list.  The Clinton package as presently proposed |> includes a variety of recommended spending areas and dollar amounts.  It  |> does not include a line-by-line list of every project that would be funded. |> (Congress may include such line items in the bill when it passes. |> Likewise, it may prohibit spending for specific projects as amendments to |> the bill.  Such amendments, positive and negative, are often pointed to |> by those who propose a "line item veto" or "enhanced recision" power for |> the President.)  |>  |> Some of the $16 billion package is in the form of "block grants" to states |> and localities.    This is why I asked to be 'enlightened'.  You are making claims about what 'is' or 'is not' part of this program.  But if the "block grants" go to states and cities, the mayors list is VERY relivent.    |>  |> I'd suggest contacting your local officials, reading a newspaper with |> good coverage of Congress (Washington Post, NY Times), or if you're  |> serious about paying attention to these issues, get copies of Congressional |> Quarterly at your library or have your representative put you on the  |> mailing list for the Congressional Record.  (It's free.)  But be prepared |> to invest more time in the effort than it takes to watch the evening |> news or read your local paper.  Okay scarasm does deserve sacrasm, but I already contact my local officals, my congress rep., senators, Watch evening news, news programs, and C-SPAN.    |>  |> In addition to the cherry picking that went on with the Mayors' wish list, |> Congressional Republicans selected wish list projects from a variety of |> Federal agencies, based apparently upon how silly the names of the projects |> sounded.  I'm not even sure if they bothered to correlate a potential |> expenditure of an agency in Clinton's bill with a potential project from |> the same agency, but it is clear that the effort was to make Clinton's |> potential expenditures appear to be linked to projects with absurd  |> names.  (Not to be taken seriously any more than equivalent tactics by |> Democrats would have been in the Reagan/Bush era.)   The fact is that Primetime (TM of ABC) has had numberous reposts on such waste programs that already exist.  Again, if we are truely intrested in eliminating the DEBT, we must REMOVE the DEFICIT, and do away with ALL PORK !!!   |>  |> I realize that it is tempting to believe that government is in the hands |> of clowns who are dishonest at best.  But such simplistic analysis does |> little to advance the cause of public education.  There have been several books written on gov. waste, network news programs  from time to time devote segments to this, and there have been bills proposed that significantly reduces expenditures without touching external programs by  changing the way 'congress does business' (and make it more efficent).  True, blame is easy, but also is spending someone else's money.    Clinton ran on a platform that he would '...not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these (his) programs'.  He has proposed a program that is not  specific, that counts on tax hikes to pay for.  --  ======================================================================  Ken M. Edwards, Bell Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC (919) 481-8476 email: cnc23a@bnr.ca    Ham: N4ZBB  All opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or co-workers, family, friends, congress, or president.