Typically absent from the Washington Post's coverage (and most top media's coverage) of the federal budget is whether Congress should be spending anything on certain programs. In this case, a national energy bill. Think about it: A national energy bill. Is this the U.S.S.A?
Here's part of what the Washington Post says:
But administration officials counter that the bills could have been far worse. An energy bill worked out by House and Senate negotiators in 2003 would have cost more than twice as much as the current version.
"It should be signed," said Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell. "It's the best energy bill that can be passed."
The highway bill initially proposed in the House would have cost $88 billion more than the final version.
