August 08, 2005
Spend Spend Spend
We are being crushed under the fiscal irresponsibilty of our government.
The war in Iraq is costing Billions per day. Why is it that our government adds so much unneccessary pork to every bill?
From the Washington Post:
If you look at fiscal conservatism these days, it's in a sorry state," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of only eight House members to vote against the $286.5 billion transportation bill that was passed the day before the recess. "Republicans don't even pretend anymore."
Last week, Congress approved transportation and energy bills that burst through the president's cost limits. Annual spending bills are inching above caps set by Congress itself in its budget plan for 2006. And a massive water projects bill passed by the House last month authorizes spending that would exceed current levels by 173 percent.
"You have to be courageous to not spend money," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), "and we don't have many people who have that courage."
Indeed, Congress has exceeded the allocations or assumptions in its budget resolution four times -- and the year's legislative work is far from complete. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, those budget violations have raised spending through 2010 by roughly $2.2 billion above Congress's limits and tacked $115 billion onto the federal budget deficit through the end of decade, including $33 billion in 2006 alone.
That $33 billion may be tantamount to a rounding error in a $2.6 trillion budget, but it is 10 percent of the $333 billion budget deficit the White House has forecast for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.
"There's a rising level of frustration with the disconnect between where the vast majority of conservatives are in this country and how Congress is behaving," said former representative Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), whose Club for Growth political action committee finances the campaigns of conservative candidates. "There's going to be a wake-up call sooner or later."
For now, Congress and the White House are locked in a pattern of skirting their own constraints.
Interesting, given that Republicans always use the Democrats spending habits as a tool against them during elections.
"lawmakers are embracing the pork, including graffiti eradication in the Bronx, $277 million in road projects for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and a $200,000 deer-avoidance system in New York."
I hope voters don't buy into the myth that is, Republican fiscal responsibility.
I think all Democratic candidates should pass out calculators along with their literature during up coming elections. Clinton's numbers vs. Bush's alone should be enough of a wake-up call.(You'd think)
Republicans are like kids in a candy store, and the guy with the veto pen is the biggest sugar addict in the room.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 8, 2005 11:21 AMThe President and his veto pen is supposed to be the check and balance upon Congress. See what happens when the American people assemble a one party dominated government? It will not stand. But, the harm done in the interim may be irrepairable.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 8, 2005 11:47 AMFunny, I’m seeing the same sort of thing at the state level with the Democrat who got into office on the premise that he’d balance the budget without raising taxes. He hasn’t even come close.
This is not a Republican problem. It’s a government problem. The laws as they are set up make it way too easy for these people who “represent” us to spend our money.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 8, 2005 11:51 AMYou know, being a fiscal conservative, I have to ask a question.
Wasn’t the main purpose of the “Line-Item Veto” to allow the president to cut pork from the budget?
Here’s a message for all the “pork” packers in the Congress. Learn this word and use it often when packing the budget with “pork”.
The word is….”NO!”
Posted by: Jim T at August 8, 2005 11:55 AMJim T. and Stephanie, there is only one way to force politicians to act responsibly with our tax dollars. And that is for the stupid American people to wake and up and start voting anti-incumbent. Many a freshman has come into office intent upon cutting spending. But, freshman have little to no power over the entrenched incumbents who pull all the strings.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 8, 2005 12:01 PMWhile I dislike the stuffing of the budget with pork I find it interesting that two of the three examples came from NY. NY traditionally gets shortchanged on federal spending. In one study NY received $.81 in federal spending for every $1 paid in federal taxes. Contrast this to some red states such as North Dakota, Alaska, Mississippi, West Virginia, Montana, and Alabama which all receive more than twice that amount.
I’m not saying that New York should receive pork, I do not think pork is a good thing. Pork raises taxes, and it does something republicans always accuse democrats of doing, it re-distributes the wealth, albeit not in a manner that benefits the poor, rather in a manner that benefits the red states at the expense of the blue states.
Jim,
I believe the Supreme Court found the line item veto unconstitutional as it took power from the Congress and gave it to the President.
Stephanie,
I think you’re right that it’s a government problem. Spending controls are best when one party controls the Congress and the other the White House.
So let’s throw out the Republicans in either Congress or the White House and move on. Thanks.
Posted by: Burt at August 8, 2005 12:30 PMWe are the only nation in WORLD HISTORY to cut taxes and be at war simultaneously.
Posted by: Vic at August 8, 2005 12:31 PMDavid,
The governor I’m talking about (Jim Doyle) is not an incumbent. And he’s used his line-item veto to veto CUTS in spending. (The Reps that control Wisconsin congress were trying to cut spending, BTW.) Despite the fact that he’s cut services and raised fees (so we Wisconsinites have to pay more for less) he still can’t seem to decrease spending. I voted third-party for governor and will do it again and again.
Burt,
The situation with Doyle convinces me that your Dem vs. Rep isn’t going to solve anything. We HAVE that in Wisconsin. We’re still getting higher fees, less services, more red-tape and less productivity within our state government and the budget isn’t nearly as balanced as Doyle said he could make and we’re still down-right hostile to new business coming in that would solve our job situation here. The balancing act doesn’t work when goals are based on party-lines not benefitting the people whom our “representatives” are supposed to serve.
Stephanie,
I guess you’ll just have to push to try and get Clinton elected for a third term then. Best of luck.
Posted by: Burt at August 8, 2005 02:00 PMI like the line item veto. If the USSC thinks that can’t happen, lets go with a balanced budget amendment. There aint shit they can say about that.
Raise taxes, get voted out.
It would do the same thing.
Posted by: Beagle at August 8, 2005 02:11 PMBush just signed the energy bill… so much pork and not a BBQ in sight…
Posted by: vague at August 8, 2005 02:12 PMStephanie, well, that’s two votes for third party. Keep this up and we could create a landslide. :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 8, 2005 02:34 PMDavid R. Remer wrote: … there is only one way to force politicians to act responsibly with our tax dollars. And that is for the stupid American people to wake and up and start voting anti-incumbent. Many a freshman has come into office intent upon cutting spending. But, freshman have little to no power over the entrenched incumbents who pull all the strings.
Well, as most regulars here know too well, that’s a plan I completely agree with (i.e. vote only for non-incumbents, until a few things are fixed), because:
(1) THE CURRENT SYSTEM HAS A FLAW: The people within it are only human. It’s quite likely that many of us too, in the same situation, would succumb to the temptations. Thus, some changes to the system are required. Transparency is the key. But there’s still the problem of how to make that happen.
(2) TREAT GOVERNMENT AS ONE ENTITY: Simply voting for different people may not help much. And, it’s very difficult (for most voters) to know and measure the performance of over those in the Executive branch and the 435 in Congress. Many just pull the single-party lever (all Republican or all Democratic), but they’d probably get rid of it fast if people started voting only for non-incumbents.
(3) TRANSPARENCY: One must learn the rules to know how to break them. Over time, in any system, the rules become abused. So, some changes or new rules are needed. Some more may be needed later. Rules that create more transparency would is key to a more responsible and accountable government. One good place to start to eliminate pork-barrel is to allow only ONE-ITEM-PER-BILL, because the inherent lack of transparency in the current method allows bills to contain too many items, and thousands of pages that too few scrutinize. Thus, few really know why a politician voted for or against the bill. The over-complication of the process allows pork-barrel (abuse) to sneak into bills.
(4) BALANCE OF POWER: It may be the only way to peacefully balance power (not simply shift it) between government and the people. Elected government, once elected, still has all the same powers as before. They may simply now have an incentive to do a better job.
(5) PEACEFUL FORCE: It may be the only way to peacefully create peer pressure among those in government (i.e. force politicians to police their own ranks), implement new rules to create more transparency (the key to accountability and responsibility).
(6) PEER-PRESSURE: It treats government (i.e. Congress, Executive Branch) as one team (or a single entity), and they win or lose together, which helps reinforce the incentive for politicians to police their own ranks.
(7) SIMPLICITY: Understandably, many believe enough voters would ever be convinced to do it. They may be right. But, no one can know that for certain. There have been election years when many incumbents have lost (possibly because of voter frustration). While this is certainly not a new idea, it’s not an idea incumbents want to become popular. But, if the people understand that, due to the system and it’s one major flaw (see above), the people need to treat government as one entity, it may create the peer-pressure required to make politicians police their own ranks and act more responsibly. And, the benefit of simplicity increases the likelihood of success. It is not realistic to expect voters to unseat 100% of all incumbents, But, even 20% could have an enormous impact. 30% could have a huge impact. 40% or more could have an overwhelming impact, and send a loud and clear message to government to immediately implement reform changes to create more transparency, accountability, and responsibility).
(8) REDUCE APATHY and COMPLACENCY: It may help the people (voters) become less resigned to futility and despair. And, the people are merely doing what their supposed to do. Vote for more responsible government. The only difference is that they’re now going to hold the entire Congress and Executive branch responsible too.
(9) MORE CHOICES: It may create more choices at the voting polls. Currently, main parties are restricting access to 3rd parties and independents to voting ballots and debates (e.g. Ralph Nader). This is a serious problem. Our choices are being severely limited.
(10) TERM LIMITS: It could eliminate the need for new term limits.
(11) TIME FOR SOMETHING NEW: Well, you know what they say about doing the same thing, and expecting a different result. Maybe it’s time for the people to try something else. If there was a way to make government more accountable and responsible, shouldn’t it be investigated? Perhaps voters should also be responsible and peacefully encourage government to be more transparent, accountable, and responsible government? And, if government continues to be irresponsible, what was lost? With record level deficits, pork-barrel spending, mismanagement of Social Security, Medicare, and entitlement systems, perhaps it’s worth a try?
(12) FREEDOM and ABUNDANCE: It’s possible that other subsequent improvements would naturally follow a few fundamental change. Like a step to the next higher level ? Perhaps the nation would flourish and prosper knowing it has a plan, and is on a better path. Perhaps, the nation would be safer, stronger, better care for the truly needy, have less unemployment, and maybe have all of that with lower taxes too? It could be a first in history.
_______________________________________
NOTE: Some may ask how long? Once, Twice? When does it end ? When is it OK for voters to vote for incumbents ?
Only after:
(a) government implements some basic changes to provide voters transparency to quickly and easily identify the responsible politicians to keep (such as ONE-ITEM-PER-BILL, reform campaign finance, reform the abused tax system, end mismanagement of entitlements, etc., just to name a few).
(b) government produces measurable proof of steps to resolve problems (not simply ignore them for fear of risking re-election), which allows pressing problems to grow worse in number and severity.
David,
Anytime now! :-)
Welcome d.a.n., I was wondering where you were. This thread seemed right up your alley.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 8, 2005 02:55 PMBurt,
I found Clinton to be an immoral person, who didn’t do a good job representing the American people as a figurehead. A President should be on his best behavior while in office and Clinton was not. That’s not to say that I think GWB is, but simply to say I would NOT vote for Clinton and I certainly don’t think giving a former President a THIRD term is good idea no matter who he is.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 8, 2005 02:59 PMUnderstanding the system?
I to perfer the split gov’t approach. If you look back in just recent histroy, you can see that a split gov’t works out best for all involved.
1980, Reagan is elected president and the national debt at the time was about 33 billion dollars. Reagan has a congress controlled by democrats. Reagan submits his buget to congress, congress makes cuts and increases and it goes back to the president for his signature.
For the record, Reagan never in 8 years submitted a balanced buget. Reagan’s deficet, the highest in history at the end, would have been even higher had not the demo’s cut some of his requests. $233 billion by 1988! However, many people consider the 8 years of Reagan rule to be the best 8 years in the last 100 years.
1992. Clinton gets elected. 1994, congress becomes controlled by the republican party and Newt. Again, the president submitts his buget and congress would review and make cuts and additions where it saw fit. (Clinton submits 5 balanced bugets in his 8 years in office). One party helps curtain the other in spending.
The point! Now matter who you like, the Republicans or the Democrats. Depending on your point of view, the best of times in the last 100 years (1980-1988 or 1992-2000) was a split in the power of gov’t.
I know split gov’t is the better of the two evils.
Posted by: Rusty at August 8, 2005 03:05 PMStephanie,
As a fellow Wisconsinite, I appreciate your Doyle comments. I guess he thinks bonding equals a balanced budget. He doesn’t get the whole local control thing either. He will be holding our schools hostage for years to come, making them more and more reliant on state funding. He also stole—yes I said stole—over $300 mill from our segregated transportation fund to pay for a bunch of outdated programs in the schools that keep teachers employed in positions that could be used much more effectively elsewhere.
I am a fiscal conservative (former Republican) who is sick of both parties. Count me in for a third party vote if they get anyone worth voting for on the ballot.
I think the time has come to take the legislatures as close to evenly divided as we can get them, or bring a third party into the mix. The consequence of having one party in power is having all impulse and no control.
I think if the voters demand it, the politicians will follow suit. We don’t even need to throw the bums out necessarily. Just get some groups running commercials listing how many pork bills they’ve submitted and/or voted for. Have that become the pattern, and these folks will get nervous when folks start putting riders on bills. Inhibition is the name of the game. Put the right pressure on, and even the sleaziest politician will do what’s in their own self-interest. Or, in market terms, raise the price of corruption until the cost of that supply exceeds demand.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 8, 2005 04:06 PMBy the way, this is much like I’ve been saying:
The Gamble and Spend Conservative
Raise taxes or cut the pork. Your choice, fellas.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 8, 2005 04:14 PMChi Chi,
I hadn’t even heard of the $300 million, though I can’t say I’m surprised. And people wonder why roads, ect are so bad and not getting much better, and no wonder why he had to raise fees for transportation.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 8, 2005 04:35 PMStephen said, “We don’t even need to throw the bums out necessarily.”
I have to disagree. Those “bums” get paid via tax dollars and they certainly aren’t earning their keep. Oust them at election time. Please.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 8, 2005 04:37 PMStephanie-
Well, if they don’t get the rather unsubtle hint the first few times, then by all means. I’m just saying we fire a few warning shots over their bow, to make them nervous and encourage them to shape up first. Unseating an incumbent is difficult. Best we try and use their well-honed survival skills first, and save ourselves the trouble first.
We don’t even need to throw the bums out necessarily.
Well, it’s virtually impossible that more than a few percent would be unseated. But, 10% or 20% (or more) could provide the hint you speak of.
Currently, how are people supposed to know who to keep and who to fire? How do the people know (in a system that is flawed and empowers and encouranges politicians to vote for pork-barrel, waste, graft, and influence by money) who is responsible? Some politicians are clearly exploiting the flaw. Does anyone know of a senator that didn’t vote for a bill with pork-barrel?
It’s doubtful warnings or hints will be sufficient to get some new rules (such as One-Item-Per-Bill) to provide us the transparency needed to see what’s actually going on.
It’s hard to tell why anyone voted for / against a bill, when it’s laden with so much pork too?
And, it also provides an easy explanation for deflecting responsibility by claiming support for only selected parts of a bill.
There’s nothing wrong with a two-party system. However, one or both main parties are restricting access to voting ballots to independent and 3rd party candidates. Both main parties should be held accountable for that.
And, offices of government should not be sold to the highest bidder. 90% of elections are won by the person that spends the most. Only 5% of the wealthiest have 59.01% of all wealth. 10% of the wealthiest have 70.45% of all wealth.
But 90% of average citizens (with only 29.55% of all wealth) can not compete with the other wealthier 10%. This gives rise to an elitist government, which may be why many in government do not really want to address the following:
[] campaign finance reform
[] government for sale, influence peddling, lobbying by wealthy special interest groups & corporations, and the unfair influence of vast wealth
[] reform of the tax system, and the numerous tax loopholes and tax shelters that primarily benefit the wealthy
[] the National Debt; $1 billion per day in interest; Who collecting the interest ?
Which provides another strong argument for giving support to non-incumbents who aren’t beholding to a few with vast wealth, that financed their election campaign.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2005 05:31 PMI would support a David R. Remer run for the presidency.
We need The seperation of Purse(Strings) and State.
The taxpayers money could be controlled by a bipartisan group of cloned CPA’s and lawyers,programmed to be devoid of any human emotions(The easy part), that are kept in a cave in an undisclosed location. All lobbyists and special interest group representatives would be dragged into the streets and shot along side Redsox fans of course.
Me too, as long as he’s non-incumbent.
He probably doesn’t want the job though.
If you really want to cut spending VOTE BOTH THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS OUT OF OFFICE.
Only vote for fisical conservitives and if they don’t cut spending THROW THEM OUT OF OFFICE and keep doing it until they finally get the idea.
Do this on the local, state, and national levels.
Ron, Dan-
Viva Revolucion.
In the meantime,while you’re drumming up support for these complete sweeps, we need to be more proactive about how we deal with our local representatives.
This is about not political dreams, but effective localized strategies that confront corruption where and how it is really confrontable: act by act, person by person. Movements like you prescribe, even if they succeed, collapse under their own weight, eventually. People can’t maintain a perpetual state of readiness like that.
But if bloggers are keeping tabs on their locals folks, and publicizing things, then there’s no need for a constant movement. A few folks can keep the rest of us well-informed.
So let’s keep tabs, and do some real good.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 8, 2005 08:15 PMNo. Not complete sweeps. Not 100% (that’s impossible). Not 50%. Not even 40%.
But, only 10% or 20% would be sufficient to create some incentive among elected officials to be more responsible and accountable.
Also, I think many people already communicate with their senators and representatives. But, have you ever written senators and representatives of other states? They ignore you, for the most part.
Which is why we can’t only look locally. That’s what enables government to exploit the flaw in the system. But, if we treat those in the system as one entity, we’ll be more effective at being able to influence government, as the people should be able to do, if it is really a government of/by/for the people.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2005 09:27 PMd.a.n.-
I think people want a better reason for getting rid of somebody than their status as incumbents. After all, these are the constituents who either put them in office, or keep them in office.
Better to regain control by inspiring people to exercise their right to vote. Better to keep our efforts efficient by not wasting time and money going after people doing their jobs. Better to keep the punishment stinging by not making it arbitrary.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 8, 2005 11:48 PMLocally, as in city government, where I’m at tends to be pretty one-sided. If something passes just about everybody, or absolutely everybody passes it. The main people who run outside that status quo are people w/ chips on their shoulders. Like a woman who owned a carriage house, but didn’t maintain it…until after it got condemned. She fought to keep it, but lost and then ran for office w/ that as her platform.
When everyone from the council seems to be cut from pretty much the same cloth, and everyone who runs seems quite the same, and nothing’s really wrong (I do live in a rather good city w/ few problems)… What do I do to stay active in local government as you suggest, aside from being informed and voting? Or is that not even what you meant by localized?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 9, 2005 12:42 AMI like the line item veto. If the USSC thinks that can’t happen, lets go with a balanced budget amendment. There aint shit they can say about that.
That’s an interesting idea, Beagle. I’m sure you realize that the Republican Party removed all mention of a balanced budget amendment from their partyt platform. So, if the ruling party doesn’t want it, how do we get it? (Not that I think it’s a good idea, I prefer the line-item veto. California’s constitution requires a balanced budget - the 2000-2001 power scam took care of that. It’s useless.)
Better to regain control by inspiring people to exercise their right to vote. Better to keep our efforts efficient by not wasting time and money going after people doing their jobs. Better to keep the punishment stinging by not making it arbitrary.
Stephen, well put.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 9, 2005 06:14 AMAP-
I don’t like the line-item veto. People say it would be able to remove pork, but the door swings both ways: it also can be used to cut out legislation repealing spending cuts.
The people to beat up on this are the legislators, which you rightly cite as the targets of my comment. Stephanie somewhat misses the mark, but I can’t say I disagree- Local government is a good target for the compulsion of responsibility as well. What we should also do, though, is deal with representatives at the state and national level who fall into our backyard.
I’d say my point would be to keep the communities electing these people well informed of their representative’s behavior. Partisans on both sides make the mistake of trying to convince people by bombarding them with words that speak much to their personal feelings, and little to the facts.
Opponents naturally will not share their personal feelings, so it ultimately amounts to a bunch of posturing. If, however, we make our arguments around facts, it becomes easier for public opinion to appropriately punish wrongdoers, at least easier than it would be if people were just stark ignorant
Information is the grease that lubricates the machine of politics. Without it, it is very difficult to get anything moving. If we lack awareness of the dealings of those who govern us, our power over them is lessened.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2005 09:16 AMAP,
“That’s an interesting idea, Beagle. I’m sure you realize that the Republican Party removed all mention of a balanced budget amendment from their partyt platform. So, if the ruling party doesn’t want it, how do we get it? (Not that I think it’s a good idea, I prefer the line-item veto.”
I don’t care which party proposes it. Perhaps this is a chance for Dem.’s to prove they want to cut spending ?
Screaming about deficts, with the anwser being nothing but; Raise taxes, don’t cut it for me.
Somehow we need to force them to take a meat-ax to the budget!
Voting everyone out of office will never work, people just wont do it.
Even if we cant get a line-item-veto, or a balanced budget amendment, perhaps we could demand a rule change in the senate to require a 2/3 vote to approve a budget?
I’m open to anything that will work, within the confines of the realitys of politics.
This is not a Republican problem. It’s a government problem. The laws as they are set up make it way too easy for these people who “represent” us to spend our money.
That’s so true. Both parties spend, spend, spend. One sometimes more than the other. Lately, it’s been Bush, since he won’t veto anything. But, they essentially take turns, and people loyal to one party or the other take turns criticizing the other for fiscal irresponsibility.
But, since the National Debt has grown every year for the last 45 years, it’s obvious they’re both irresponsible.
The National Debt didn’t grow much between 1996 to 2000. Was that really due to Democrats or Republicans?
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521
But, see how the debt grew between 2000 to now:
08/05/2005 $7,880,012,385,205
01/03/2005 $7,591,307,997,129
01/02/2004 $6,981,477,122,871
01/02/2003 $6,389,356,141,156
01/02/2002 $5,932,932,561,034
01/02/2001 $5,728,739,508,558
But, some say the National Debt is not a problem. I’m not sure. Maybe not, but it’s doubtful that it is helping, especially in view of shortfalls entitlements (e.g. Medicare, S.S.), pensions, and $40T of personal debt.
d.a.n.- I think people want a better reason for getting rid of somebody than their status as incumbents. After all, these are the constituents who either put them in office, or keep them in office.But, treating each candidate individually is part of the problem, since their is insufficient transparency. I think they know that too, and are probably exploiting it. Until there is sufficient transparency, government should be viewed as a team for the people (one entity). Otherwise, there’s no easy way for people to identify those in government that are responsible (or not). Without transparency, none of the members of government have sufficient incentive to police their own ranks.
Can you name one politician that hasn’t voted for any pork-barrel? See the problem? Incumbent status means those in control of government. It doesn’t mean they should be immune to responsibility. That’s our real problem. Irresponsible government. Those in government are most responsible for government, and voters are responsible for choosing them. But, voters must realize that their efforts are being diluted by many factors, that makes the voters’ job nearly impossible. Voters may eventually become resigned to the idea that government as a whole is getting out of control.
Therefore, until government becomes more transparent and responsible, and implements a few (much needed) basic reforms, we may want to view government as one entity, and the people as another entity, and their must be a balance of power between the two.
However, it is easier for government to gain an unfair balance of power. This is the situation now. Therefore, the people may occassionally, when the system becomes too abused, need to treat government as one team, and vote in a way to restore (not shift) a balance of power, until government restores some transparency, so that voters can easily see who to vote for (or not).
Better to regain control by inspiring people to exercise their right to vote. Better to keep our efforts efficient by not wasting time and money going after people doing their jobs.
Well, that doesn’t seem to be working.
Unfortunately, most people can not tell who in government is responsible (or not). Obviously, they’re not all responsible.
Can you tell us who is and who isn’t? I can’t, even though I could name a few good and a few bad. But most people don’t know. Many voters usually just pull the lever and vote straight ticket along party lines, which is also part of the problem (which would probably be quickly eliminated if voters started voting for non-incumbents, which reveals the undesireable influence of party and money, regardless of the character of candidate, since 90% of elections are won by the candidate with the most money).
But, it’s not just the people in government; it’s the system they have to work within. Some of them dream of change too.
Better to keep the punishment stinging by not making it arbitrary.
It’s not arbitrary,
It’s not punishment.
It’s the people’s right it they want to.
It’s actually more focused, since government:
(01) should be accountable, as a team for the people (one entity);
(02) has reduced transparency, making it hard for voters to know what’s going on;
(03) rejects campaign finance reform;
(04) rejects term limits;
(05) rejects tax reform, that mostly benefits the wealthy;
(06) avoids tackling tough issues for fear of risking re-election;
(07) votes for bills with pork-barrel, waste, pet projects; creating huge multi-item bills with all sorts of waste and pork-barrel hidden within;
(08) is too influenced by those with vast weatlth that get them re-elected. How can 90% of voters with only 29.55% of all wealth compete with 10% with 70.45% of all wealth (in the U.S.)?
(09) often distracts voters from more substantive issues with petty partisan bickering, and abuse of people based on race, religion, sexual preference, gender, etc.;
(10) keeps growing the National Debt ever larger (every year for the last 45 years, and all but a few for the last 70 years);
(11) both main-parties, are guilty of blocking access to voting ballots for independent and 3rd party candidates;
(12) keeps growing larger and larger to nightmare proportions (there are now more people with government jobs than all manufacturing jobs);
(13) both main-parties, voted for some questionable items in the Patriot Act that may violate the rights of the people;
(14) will not reform by itself;
So, what are people supposed to do? Just vote wiser? Vote smarter? And what good is that if a flaw in the system makes that pointless?
It is unfortunate if some good politicians are unseated, but that is the unfortunate price they pay for not policing their own ranks, letting the system be abused, not fixing the problem, and forcing the people to view government as one team, responsible as a whole.
And, if ever the voters decide to vote for non-incumbents, that’s the voters’ constitutional right to do so.
But, the idea is to not continually vote for non-incumbents always or forever…just until government implements a few important changes to increase transparency, so that voters can finally easily see who in government is responsible (or not).
And the ONE-ITEM-PER-BILL would be a good start, which would be most revealing. Then, it would be clear who voted for what, and why.
Perhaps this is a chance for Dem.’s to prove they want to cut spending ?
Seems to me, we already did that. Or did the 90s cease to exist?
Posted by: American Pundit at August 9, 2005 10:32 AMSorry, Beagle. That was flippant. Here’s the legislation Democrats introduced to balance the budget: Senate bill S.19.
It restores the pay-as-you- go rule that requires any spending or tax bill to be fully paid for - no more GOP borrow-and-spend shenanigans.
It enforces automatic across-the-board spending cuts to enforce pay-go.
And it ends procedural fast-tracking of bills that would increase the deficit.
Tell your Senators to support it.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 9, 2005 10:38 AMAP,
Do you have a link for the true and exact wording of the bill?
That link seemed to give an overview, with possible spin, as to what it would do.
The only solid goal I saw was about stoping “unfunded tax-cuts”?
I’m not real sure I want to back anything without the true wording of the bill.
AP,
With all due respect, it looks like a bill to roll back tax cuts without saying what they would cut in the budget to balance it without doing that. (raise taxes).
Posted by: Beagle at August 9, 2005 11:54 AMDo you think Senate Bill S.19 will pass?
Spending cuts?
In view of government growing larger every year?
Senate Bill S.19 would be good, but probably less likely than people voting for non-incumbents.
Republicans are irresponsible now.
But, so are Democrats.
And, so is the system.
And, so are the voters.
It’s a non-partisan problem. For example:
Who started Social Security? Roosevelt (D)
Who started Medicare? Johnson (D)
Carter expanded Medicare (D)
Reagan opposed Medicare (R)
Bush 43 expanded Medicare (R)
Who grew government ever larger? Both parties.
So, it seems that both parties are part of the problem.
But it also seems the system is also a large part of the problem, since the system allows fiscal irresponsibility to flourish.
How will the system ever be reformed if government won’t reform itself, and refuses to deal with campaign finance, election reform, influence peddling, tax reform, debt, spending, borrowing, pension shortfalls, entitlement shortfalls (S.S. & Medicare), pork-barrel, waste, graft, abuse of pardons, restricted access to ballots, lack of transparency, and ignoring tough issues for fear of risking re-election?
Can we only rely on government to do reform itself? How they vote on Senate Bill S.19 may give us the answer.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 9, 2005 12:30 PMI have a question. Why is it that so much federal money (which came out of all our pockets) goes to state projects? Wouldn’t it be better/easier/make more sense if the federal government would just tax us a lot less (which they could do if they weren’t funding state projects) and let states decide what they want to afford and how much to tax for it? People have been complaining about who gets more federal money, Blue states or Red states? Why should any of them get federal money? Why shouldn’t each individual state tax for what it needs?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 9, 2005 02:16 PMDan,
From what I read of S-19, anyone voting for it would never get my vote.
I saw that Debbie Stabanaw(sp) was a co-sponsor.
She will be gone in 2006, one of the 2, net gain, seats Rep’s will pick up in 2006.
Posted by: Beagle at August 9, 2005 02:20 PMStephanie,
That’s a good question. I could see some of it going for federal highways, and such, but I agree with you for all the rest. What sense does it make to send the federal government money only to have part of it sent back, much in the form of pork-barrel: www.cagw.org/site/PageServer
Beagle, I read part of it. It did seem a bit nebulous, even though spending cuts would be great. But, even when some things get cut (which is seldom), spending on something else increases, so the debt, borrowing, spending, and government just keep growing. Someday, there will probably be a model that shows what we’re doing violates all the rules.
If the government would just do these three things, we’d be much better off:
(1) tax reform; fair taxation (not everyone is payin’ their fair share)
(2) election/campaign reform (government shouldn’t be for sale)
(3) one-item-per-bill (so we can see what’s really happening, and stop pork sneakin’ into huge multi-thousand page bills)
Then, maybe, government would tackle and resolve some of the other tough issues facing the nation.
But, I don’t know if I’ll live long enough to ever see it happen.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 9, 2005 05:51 PMWhat happened in the 80s and 90s is we had a president of one party and a congress controled by the other party. They were so busy fighting each other that they didn’t have time to screw with the economy (or the tax payers) and everything went it’s marry way. The result was almost everybody did well.
I know I did very well during that time.
d.a.n.
Look, if you’re going to design a new system it’s going to require compromises, because yours will be an imperfect system. This one item per bill won’t work with a complex society like ours. Have you ever sat in on a board meeting, and taken note of the complexity of running a simple business? Shorten and simplify the bills, encourage people to leave the pork in the barrel. One item per bill is going to get things so damn overwrought, people are going to clamor for the omnibus bills.
Sorry Stephen, I don’t follow that logic.
But, I do know what I’m hoping for may be impossible at this time. Hard to know for sure.
Yes, I have sat in on board meetings, and run or helped run more than one small business.
Simplification and transparency is the key.
The alternative, some day, may be worse.
But, don’t worry. It’s a long way off before people get that frustrated. Something drastic will have to happen before they start to think about such things. In the mean time, I doubt government will reform itself (just based on track-record).
The politicians probably read these blogs daily and revel in the fact that the people are mostly asleep at the wheel.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 9, 2005 07:31 PMWith all due respect, it looks like a bill to roll back tax cuts without saying what they would cut in the budget to balance it without doing that. (raise taxes).
Read it again. S.19 is not retro-active, so it’s not going to roll back anything. It forces Congress to spend within their means on both tax cuts AND expenditures - in fact, it merely restores a Republican-sponsored law from the 90s that was instrumental in balancing the budget then.
Senate Bill S.19 would be good, but probably less likely than people voting for non-incumbents.
Sure, d.a.n. Republicans have a lock on all legislation, and they’ll never even let it get to the floor for debate.
“You cannot manufacture a consensus for statutory controls when the consensus for budget discipline is not strong enough,” said Representative Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the House Budget Committee. “I do not believe, unfortunately, there is a broad enough consensus necessary to enact budget controls into law.”Posted by: American Pundit at August 9, 2005 11:11 PM
d.a.n.-
One item per bill sounds good on paper, until you actually have to work it out in non-linear reality. We put all kinds of items together in a bill because those items often are part of an organic whole. Take your computer, for instance. If somebody in a business that makes PCs neglects to get Primary or Secondary drive cables for the machines, all the other parts come together to make an expensive paperweight.
So it is with the funding for a library, or for roads. Put every item up for a separate vote, and not only does the paperwork multiply, but you get crippling mismatches between plans and execution. Filter the bathwater for the baby when you make proposals, that’s all I’m saying.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 10, 2005 12:39 AMStephen,
If the federal government was trying to do less of what should be left up to states and local communities, our bills wouldn’t “need” to be so convoluted. As it is, when the bill is in legalese and longer than most books, the majority of the people it effects can’t understand it. Sometimes I really think it’s a bad idea to let the lawyers write the laws. It gives them way too much power over the system.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 10, 2005 01:11 AMStephen Daugherty,
But, it may be worth it for the transparency?
Or, perhaps there should be a rule about unrelated items?
Stephanie,
Yes, and the pork is not evenly distributed either. See pork barrel in 2004:
home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/PorkBarrelPerCapitaByState2004.htm
I don’t think Texas is getting it’s fair share, but look at Washington DC ?
Posted by: d.a.n at August 10, 2005 12:02 PMSo, what do you think of one purpose per bill containing one or more related items that are necessary for the purpose of the bill?
Shouldn’t a bill have a purpose?
Therefore, a bill for : $6,837,750 added by the House for projects in the district of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young (R-Fla.), including: $850,000 for St. Petersburg for facilities renovation and expansion of the Florida Museum of Fine Arts,
should not find its way into:
a bill for: $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame;
or a bill for : $150,000 added in conference for the Coca-Cola Space Science Center in Columbus, Ga.;
or a bill for : $250,000 added by the House for the North Creek Ski Bowl in the district of House appropriator John Sweeney (R-N.Y.);
or a bill for : $250,000 added by the Senate for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in Nashville, Tenn. to support community programs;
or a bill for : $775,000 for the Biltmore Hotel in the district of Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (R-Fla.);
or a bill for: $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation;
or a bill for : $300,000 for Baltimore for the relocation of the Center Garage;
(see more at caw.org)
home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/cagw.org.gif
I like McCain, but even he has his pork-barrel projects too:
$1,000,000 added by the Senate for Brown Tree Snakes. The Brown Tree Snake, which is found only in Guam, has not been discovered to be life-threatening to humans nor does it have the ability to survive in North America. The snake was first introduced to Guam in the late 1940s and continues to be a sore spot for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Commenting on the numerous earmarks that found their way into the fiscal 2005 Defense Appropriations Act, the senator zoned in on this project: “$1 million for the Brown Tree Snakes. Once again, the brown tree snake has slithered its way into our defense appropriation bill. I’m sure the snakes are a serious problem, but a defense appropriations act is not the appropriate vehicle to address this issue.”
d.a.n, the answer is to elect a President who has the backbone to put the needs of America before the needs of his party.
All Bush had to do was veto the bill like he vowed he would. Instead, he caved in and meekly signed off on the pork so the GOP congresspeople who are up for re-election next year have something to crow about to their constituents.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 11, 2005 10:06 AM
