I wasn't aiming for the points, so hardly surprising that I'd miss them. :) (And you accuse ME of not getting YOUR jokes?) It's hardly surprising that a Democratic President and Democratic Congress are going to spend more money than you are comfortable with; that's why y'all are in different parties. Your side calls it "pork"; we call it "how government works". (Tomato, tomahto, let's call the whole thing off.)

There are three ways (broadly speaking) that the federal government spends money (as I understand it): (a) the money is given directly to the states; (b) the executive hands it out through one of its agencies; or (c) Congress specifies funds for some particular purpose. The last is called an "earmark". Some earmarks are bad, particularly when they are snuck into large spending bills anonymously at the last minute. Some support worthy projects which may be overlooked by the executive branch. But regardless, the ability to spend money on specific projects is a recognized power of Congress, and so it is unsurprising that Congress would defend its right to do so, even in the extremely unlikely event that it would decide not to exercise that right.

And I don't think that anyone has accused the Republicans of turning into Democrats; as Meriadoc Brandybuck would say, that would be "a compliment; and so, of course, not true"