<I read the Nation, The Progressive, Mother Jones and Jim Hightower's Lowdown.

Well, that explains a lot.

This laundry list is an old routine. Send a bill through, fill it full of budget-busting or other crap that the President couldn't swallow if you jammed it down his throat with a broom handle, and then add, like a cherry on the top, something along the lines of "Grant To Give Milk To Starving Orphans." Since the line item veto was declared unconstitutional in 1998, the President has two options: sign a shitty bill, or reject it. When it's rejected, the opposition makes loud noises about how the President wants to take milk away from the orphans. This works great on less-discerning voters.

Hanging some unpalatable baggage on an otherwise good bill is another basic trick.

Homeland security has been a prime victim of legislators trying to ride their own pet goodies on its back. Who would want to be on record as voting against Homeland Security?

I'm familiar only with the Container Security Initiative and a very few others of this type on this list, but I would bet that with research, many of these would fall under such a category--not rejected on their own merits, but because they were presented in an unacceptable package deal.

Other items, like the Hope VI funding, are being replaced by block grants to states to allow local control of such things. Incidentally, Hope VI, like much of the Federal Housing program, has a crappy record of actually building useful housing. Naturally, this little list omits these things. The Democrats excel at telling the part of the story that pushes their agenda.

Of course, the Democrats count on nobody doing such research, so it works. And I'm not about to dissect the entire thing. What would be the point? Your mind is made up.