J. Edgar Hoo-hah

|

Noting that the FBI budget had grown by more than $1 billion since 2001, the report said: "What we got for these increases is debatable."

That's from last month's harsh Senate assessment of the FBI, as discussed in today's WashPost.

This isn't to suggest that the FBI won't get more money–more money even than President Bush wants to give it. A House-Senate team is close to recommending that the FBI get $4.3 billion this time around, some $45 million more than the prez suggested.

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) told the Post "this is not the time to hold the FBI back or not fund them." (Alas that time is never right.) Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the primary author of the damning Senate report, doesn't anticipate slowing down the gravy train anytime soon, saying that J. Edgar's boys are in for a "significant increase" this budget cycle.

What color is the budget alert system on again?

NEXT: Least Favored Nations

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Of course the FBI needed more money in 2002.

    Because of Utah’s high taxes on booze, they had to spend a lot of money for their party down in Provo during the Winter Olympics with underaged girls & liquor.

    The FBI could not find a doughnut in Rosie O’Donnell’s kitchen and they could not find a bottle of alcohol in Ozzy Osbourne’s pantry.

  2. Well, if the Amber Alert is always on amber, and the Homeland Security alert must always stay between yellow and red (with red reserved for after the fact) then why can’t we have a Budget Alert that stays in the red forever?

    I guess conservatives only hate deficits when they don’t get to create them.

  3. Maybe they can spend some of the extra money on better sharpshooters…

  4. Many conservatives often oppose deficits.

    The Republican Party, on the other hand, oppose them when they don’t get to create them. 🙂

    Personally, I don’t see the problem with a short term deficit to fix some short term problems. Unfortunately, that’s not what’s on the table.

    The dividend fix is a good idea, but we can’t afford it right now. Now if we were to trade the out years of the last tax cut for the removal of the dividends tax, that would make a LOT of sense. Get the GAO to figure out how much it will save the average person in each bracket, figure out how much we’d have to increase the income tax in each bracket to offset this, and do it. There you are: a less distortive taxation system (and thus more efficent investment), at zero net cost.

    Somehow I don’t see it happening.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.