This "faith-based" bill has me confused.greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread
When discussion first started several months ago about the FBI [heh...that would be Faith Based Initiatives], I couldn't get too excited about the prospects one way or another. Afterall, the Federal Government already funds the Foster Grandparents Program, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, Healthy Start, Head Start, Lutheran Social Services, United Jewish Communities, the Hari-Krishna program for the homeless, and the Black Muslim program for rehabilitation of ex-cons. There are countless others, but you get the point.
Not one of these organizations was allowed to 1) proselytize their faith, or 2) discriminate in hiring personnel. Little nuances were allowed, as in no one insisting that the Hari-Krishna serve meat to the homeless [which is against their beliefs], and I'm sure many of these organizations snuck in some proselytizing anyway. They probably even snuck in some discrimination in hiring, but these things were dealt with as they came up.
All this was done without an Office of Faith Based Initiatives, but I wondered how the money was budgeted. Bush had recommended $82 billion be spent on FBI over 10 years, but the House Ways and Means Committee reduced this amount to $6.3 billion over the same period. Is this an increase, the same, or a lesser amount than we're spending now? I didn't know, so I looked at the 2002 Budget. It looks to me like we're talking about No. 11 in this link, but where do all these other organizations come in?
One doesn't learn much from this budget layout, but the arguments in the House still ran hot and heavy over this one.
It seems as though the House succumbed to Watt when he said that no discrimination will come out of this bill. I dunno. If no discrimination will come out of this bill, why was there even a bill? Weren't we doing pretty well spending Federal money on charitable organizations before?
Bill gets passed by House despite discrimination loophole
The next step is for the Senate to do something about this bill [or create another of its own, which Lieberman suggests he will do], but if the discrimination loophole is eliminated and the proselytization loophole is eliminated, what exists that we didn't have before? The numbers indicated for the few organizations listed in the 2002 budget don't indicate that taxpayers will pay MORE for FBI, necessarily. Heck...taxpayers may even pay LESS. I don't know without further data.
Does anyone have further information on this? I'm tired of Googling.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 20, 2001
You might try webfert
-- Cherri (email@example.com), July 20, 2001.
This "faith-based" bill has me confused
Bullshit will do that.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 20, 2001.
Instead of Googling, try Gargling
-- (email@example.com), July 20, 2001.
I ran into a white, older/middle-aged guy who wore a Hare Krishna "robe" and sandals for the second time, once in a doctors office; this time in the grocery store. He said, "You have a good memory".
-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), July 20, 2001.