GOP to Release Their Budget Proposal

[NorthSideSox72]

Even McCain dropped the earmark pledge repeatedly last summer when it was pointed out by some intrepid folks that things like all U.S. aid to Israel are funded via earmarks, and no, McCain was not in favor of eliminating all U.S. aid to Israel. Didn't get called on it much down the stretch, but every time someone asked him about an obviously good earmark he backtracked.

IMO, there are no good earmarks, ever. There are good funding proposals, that get snuck in as earmarks. And if they are good, then vote on them in some useful way.

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

IMO, there are no good earmarks, ever. There are good funding proposals, that get snuck in as earmarks. And if they are good, then vote on them in some useful way.

100% agree.

[Balta1701]

IMO, there are no good earmarks, ever. There are good funding proposals, that get snuck in as earmarks. And if they are good, then vote on them in some useful way.

They do get voted on, aside from one or two potentially illegal ones that I think Don Young (R-AK) snuck in a few years ago. They get voted on as part of the normal budgeting process/normal process for whatever bill they're being put in.

 

The thing that defines an earmark is not that it's not voted on. The thing that defines an earmark is that it is Congress itself that is saying exactly what the money must be spent on, rather than Congress allocating an amount of money to an executive branch department based on a budget proposal, where the executive branch is getting to choose what the money is spent on.

 

Passing a bill with no earmarks is no different than passing an earmark loaded bill if the money is all going to the same place. In both cases, with the notable Young exception, they're still voted on following the normal Congressional voting processes.

[NorthSideSox72]

They do get voted on, aside from one or two potentially illegal ones that I think Don Young (R-AK) snuck in a few years ago. They get voted on as part of the normal budgeting process/normal process for whatever bill they're being put in.

 

The thing that defines an earmark is not that it's not voted on. The thing that defines an earmark is that it is Congress itself that is saying exactly what the money must be spent on, rather than Congress allocating an amount of money to an executive branch department based on a budget proposal, where the executive branch is getting to choose what the money is spent on.

 

Passing a bill with no earmarks is no different than passing an earmark loaded bill if the money is all going to the same place. In both cases, with the notable Young exception, they're still voted on following the normal Congressional voting processes.

OK, either you are incorrect, or I am not explaining what I mean.

 

An earmark is not voted on. The bill its attached to is voted on.

 

[Balta1701]

OK, either you are incorrect, or I am not explaining what I mean.

 

An earmark is not voted on. The bill its attached to is voted on.

That's what I'm saying though. The bill is voted on. The earmarks aren't attached after all of the voting is complete. If people have problems with an earmark, they have the opportunity to challenge it and have a vote on that specific language. If the bill is voted on, then there's a vote on the bill including the earmarks.

 

I just have difficulty seeing how Congress spending money on a specific program is any worse than the Executive Branch writing in amounts of money for specific programs and then having Congress pass the budget for that branch. The only question is who exactly is making the final decision. There's opportunity for corruption in both mechanisms if they aren't properly regulated. And frankly, the executive branch has more than enough power as it is.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's what I'm saying though. The bill is voted on. The earmarks aren't attached after all of the voting is complete. If people have problems with an earmark, they have the opportunity to challenge it and have a vote on that specific language. If the bill is voted on, then there's a vote on the bill including the earmarks.

 

I just have difficulty seeing how Congress spending money on a specific program is any worse than the Executive Branch writing in amounts of money for specific programs and then having Congress pass the budget for that branch. The only question is who exactly is making the final decision. There's opportunity for corruption in both mechanisms if they aren't properly regulated. And frankly, the executive branch has more than enough power as it is.

That's what I thought. You have to vote on the whole damn thing, and that is inherently bad on multiple levels, as I've detailed before.

 

The bolded part though, I am not sure what you are referring to. Can you elaborate?

 

[Balta1701]

That's what I thought. You have to vote on the whole damn thing, and that is inherently bad on multiple levels, as I've detailed before.

 

The bolded part though, I am not sure what you are referring to. Can you elaborate?

If you don't like an earmark in a bill, or hell, any part of a bill, you can bring a motion to have it struck from the bill either in committee or on the floor of whatever house is doing the voting. Fairly commonplace.

[Balta1701]

Another doozy from the Republican budget version. It includes this graph.

 

Enjoy that last part? Here's our best guess about where it comes from.

As near as I can tell, Paul Ryan and his staff just took the CBO projections that ended in 2019 and drew a random line, extending upward at about a 45 degree angle, until 2080. There's no real attempt to make it look scientific.

[NorthSideSox72]

If you don't like an earmark in a bill, or hell, any part of a bill, you can bring a motion to have it struck from the bill either in committee or on the floor of whatever house is doing the voting. Fairly commonplace.

Oh jeez, OK, that I knew. Except that isn't the slightest bit realistic, I am sure you realize. When there are hundreds of amendments/earmarks on a bill that you got last night, and you are in the minority, you have no real options.

 

This COULD be so simple. Allow no amendments or earmarks on any bill, period. Use a menu money system to evenly allocate for local district stuff, vote on it like an omni budget and move on. This would be so much better in every way.

 

[Balta1701]

I found this budget commentary interesting.

Sure, there may be some cynicism involved in how the Ryan proposal makes its numbers add up. But the overall outline - an across-the-board tax cut and a flatter tax code, substantial means-testing for Social Security and Medicare, and a five-year discretionary spending freeze - strikes me as the opposite of cynical. Rather, there's a kind of deep innocence about it: The purity of its small-government vision is more detached from the grubby realities of American politics than any similar document I can remember. It's as if the Democratic Party, in the aftermath of it's 2002 and 2004 defeats, had proposed an alternative to George W. Bush's wartime budgets that slashed defense spending dramatically, raised income taxes across the board, and invested all of the resulting revenue in a revivified AFDC, a massive cash grant to the UN, and a big new federal jobs program for "green-collar" workers, community organizers, and Planned Parenthood clinicians.

 

Now maybe the Democrats should have done just that. Certainly there are left-liberal voices who would have welcomed an explicitly social-democratic alternative to Bushism, as a means of widening the bounds of political discourse, and opening new vistas on the left. Sometimes naivete in the short run is wisdom in the long run. And maybe by providing such a rigorously small-government alternative to Obamanomics, the Congressional GOP will succeed in pushing the conversation rightward, and moving important but hard-to-sell ideas like means-testing entitlements into the mainstream where they belong.

 

But sometimes naivete is just naivete. Sometimes, putting your least-popular ideas together in one agenda just makes it easier for your opponents to run circles around you. And right now, I think the country could use a right-of-center party that paid a little more attention to its messaging, and a little less attention to its blueprints for the ideal small-government society.

[lostfan]

And right now, I think the country could use a right-of-center party that paid a little more attention to its messaging, and a little less attention to its blueprints for the ideal small-government society.

Kapkomet said something similar to this a couple of days ago.

[kapkomet]

Kapkomet said something similar to this a couple of days ago.

 

Seriously, if that kind of "party" existed, they would wipe out the entire government - that's change we can believe in. I think the bas*** crazies on both sides are ruining America.

[Balta1701]

 

Seriously, if that kind of "party" existed, they would wipe out the entire government - that's change we can believe in. I think the bas*** crazies on both sides are ruining America.

I'll take issue with this by saying that you're looking at it from your side, from the right. Because you're on that side, everything done that is slightly to the left looks like it's bas*** (I really don't know what profanity that was supposed to be) crazy. I think that privatizing medicare is a terrible idea, but for someone on your side, you might think that's a decidedly smart move and it's bas*** crazy not to do so.

 

It's the fallacy that the entire media loves to make...taking one's personal views or the views of the group of people you spend time with and saying "oh if only someone would do act x, it would reveal that the whole world actually agrees with us."

[kapkomet]

I'll take issue with this by saying that you're looking at it from your side, from the right. Because you're on that side, everything done that is slightly to the left looks like it's bas*** (I really don't know what profanity that was supposed to be) crazy. I think that privatizing medicare is a terrible idea, but for someone on your side, you might think that's a decidedly smart move and it's bas*** crazy not to do so.

 

It's the fallacy that the entire media loves to make...taking one's personal views or the views of the group of people you spend time with and saying "oh if only someone would do act x, it would reveal that the whole world actually agrees with us."

You know, actually, I don't. I know I throw a lot of Kaperbole ™ out there. I know that you were using this as an example - I do think that privatizing RETIREMENT should be an option, and you have to have a revamp of how medicare and medicaid and social security is funded.

 

The whole system - we pay for our parents, etc. is so off balance... that's the problem. It's not how it's funded.

 

Anyway, my point is there is too many extremes in both parties that really swings crap. I think the GOP has their nose in crap it doesn't belong in (marriage, etc.) and I think that the Democrats tend to want to bloat government. Either way, it's all about control and power, and guess what? Political parties want that power and therefore stick their nose in what it doesn't belong in. And that's more my point. Hands off government is best - but I understand that there's a need for government.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

...and I think that the Democrats tend to want to bloat government.

Not sure why you're sticking to talking points. I have seen no evidence in my lifetime of markedly smaller federal government when the GOP is in control.

[kapkomet]

Not sure why you're sticking to talking points. I have seen no evidence in my lifetime of markedly smaller federal government when the GOP is in control.

Forget the last 8 years. GWB screwed the pooch hard on this. It's one of his biggest mistakes. Hell, it's one of the biggest mistakes of the Republican party EVER. There is no party that stands for this and I contend that if there were, AND THEY ACTUALLY DID IT and not just talk crap, they would do really well as a party.

 

[Balta1701]

Forget the last 8 years. GWB screwed the pooch hard on this. It's one of his biggest mistakes. Hell, it's one of the biggest mistakes of the Republican party EVER. There is no party that stands for this and I contend that if there were, AND THEY ACTUALLY DID IT and not just talk crap, they would do really well as a party.

One way I might agree with you is if the Republican party went truly populist in the smaller-government sense. Right now, the big thing that both parties do is serve the corporate world and their lobbyists at the expense of everyone else. It's just that sometimes the lobbyists are different...unions don't exactly get much success lobbying the Republicans, oil companies the Dems...both sides are pretty much owned by Wall Street...which fascinates me especially now that the federal government owns wall street.

 

If it was smaller government built in no small part by kicking the money changers out of the temple, I could see that being interesting. But I could see either party being wildly successful if they adopted the us against them philosophy enough to actually work on behalf of everyone who isn't a lobbyist rather than saying that they will do so and then forgetting about that the next time a banking deregulation bill comes forward.

 

But then again, I have no way of knowing whether or not people would actually agree with me or if its just my circle that seems to think that and I'm just projecting that widely.

[bmags]

the federal government didn't exactly shrink under reagan. Though he did grow it with the goal of starving the entitlement programs and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

edit: shrink, not shring, which is close to shwing...

Edited April 2, 2009 by bmags