C'mon, really? Just because our party is in control now doesn't mean we should applaud recklessly going further into debt for stuff that sounds awesome to us. I'm all for transsexual beauty pageants (well maybe, beauty judging itself is kinda sketchy no matter what the criteria) certainly all for erotic art shows, but should federal taxes pay for them at a time when we have less than no money?

I'm sure medicare plan d sounded awesome to big pharma and no bid contracts sounded awesome to halliburton.

I mean this is our future they're mortgaging.

You have to be joking me. That's REALLY a huge waste of money.

I wonder if it is an outright lie, or if it's latching onto a particular line item and then exploding it to cover an entire section of proposals. Do they just pull stuff out of their ass?

I suspect it's the later.

Yeah, can we get some original sources on this?

Yeah, can we get some original sources on this?

So the bill is H.R. 1. If you want the original source, you can view any bill on Congress' website. FRC gave no justification other than this quote. The letter was quoted fairly here, it's not out of context. I've looked at the bill, there's nothing about erotic art shows or tranny pageants, unfortunately. Nor is there any reference to $360 million in any variation. My best guess is that FRC has drawn a vague connection between funding for some department and some event they've sponsored in the past.

What is on the bill is "not less than $335,000,000 shall be used as an additional amount to carry out domestic HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually-transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention programs, as jointly determined by the Secretary and the Director" Good one congress.

I just had a funny idea. There's a "click here to act now" button on that FRC "action alert." I thought it would be funny to use the FRC's message template, delete whatever they put there, and replace it with a big thank you for funding tranny beauty pageants.

Not with my tax money.....

Pay for it yourself

This is not what the government should be paying for. I'm sure that it's probably not being reported exactly accurately but looking at the post above how family planning funding is being jeopardized... and looking at our debt and our crippled economy... we don't need the government footing the bill for the nonessentials.

Holy trolls! Has somebody been googling "transsexual" and "erotic art" again... or are we just unfamiliar with the Family Research Council?

Anyhow, I object to the FRC's use of the term "beauty pageants." In the unlikely (er, nill) chance that the federal government is funding such things, I'm sure they're scholarship programs. What could be better for the economy?

Just a note on the "lawn care" item - This is likely covering repairs and maintenance for *National Mall,* which most people agree is in dire need of work. I'm sure Family Research Council folks have participated in such National Mall events as National Right to Life Day and other rallies. Who do they think is picking up the garbage left by such events and dealing with the effects of having thousands of people trampling on the grass?

Actually now that I've done a bit more research I'm feeling a bit sheepish about my original comment.

That said, I stand by the idea that we ought to be reluctant to spend until recovery is assured. I think I reacted to this post the way I did because I'm exacerbated by the "solutions" to the economic crisis. 1.5 trillion is probably too much to spend especially since we're not even tackling health care reform.

Also, I resent the dismissive troll implication. I'm an ally, I would identify as feminist if I weren't afraid of the backlash, and I'm on this particular site four or five times a week.