The New York Times has a great article today highlighting some of the criticisms of supplemental spending, which has "ballooned over the last five years, driven first by the Sept. 11 attacks, followed by the war in Iraq and then by natural disasters including the tsunami in Asia and Hurricane Katrina." Excessive supplemental spending allows lawmakers to push through projects without going through the budget process, and allows them to evade voted-on, set spending limits. And while supplemental emergency spending is often used to fund war activities, many believe that at this point the spending should no longer be categorized as "emergency." The article quote AEI research fellow Veronique de Rugy as saying: We have been using supplementals to finance the war, and it might actually make sense the first year. But three or four years into the war, no war spending should be going through supplementals. It's not as if it's sudden, urgent and unforeseen, or temporary. This issue is currently relative as the Senate plans to take up a $106 billion emergency spending bill this week, which is $14 billion higher than the one requested by the White House. As the NY Times points out, the bill includes such non-emergecny spending as "farm-program provisions totaling $4 billion," "$700 million to relocate a rail line in Mississippi," and "$1.1 billion for fishery projects, including a $15 million 'seafood promotion strategy.'" Majority Leader Bill Frist and a number of other lawmakers are in agreement that the emergency spending process is being abused, and has been for years. In an April 21 letter to his Republican colleagues, Frist said "the supplemental should not be bogged down with extraneous amendments and unrelated provisions. In the face of continued deficits, we must be careful to not blow the bank on the back of the war." New York Times: New Criticism Falls on 'Supplemental' Bills