U.S. Politics, 9 trillion

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Why am I throwing a party, and why are Republicans invited to it? <_<

Incidentally, I need to trademark my board initials.

Uh, what are the initials for "好土同志"?

[Swordfish]

I'm fairly certain that they already have this restriction. At least my doctor friend posted anecdote on her Facebook page, how when in line at the grocer, a mother in front of her was complaining she couldn't use her stamps to get a Snickers bar because it wasn't a health food, and she was arguing that it contained peanuts and thus was healthy.

(my doctor friend posted it to indicate that people's health education was in much more need of reform than health care)

I don't know. Maybe that's just in Michigan?

I worked many years ago at ym grandmothers corner store, and there was a penny candy counter.

It was not at all unusual for people to come in several times a day and buy .01 candy with food stamps in order to get the change, which they would later use to buy cigarettes and stuff.

Sounds like some of that has changed. Do they even still use the paper food stamps? Or is it some kind of access card now?

[Commodore]

John Boehner has some great ideas for reforming the House:

every bill that comes to the floor of the House should contain a clear citation of constitutional authority. If we cannot do this much--we should put down the pen and stop right there.

Congress has been most maligned over the past generation for its fiscal recklessness, and rightly so. Mindful of the dangers of 'taxation without representation,' the Framers handed the power to tax and spend to the legislative branch exclusively. It's right there in Article I, Section 9.

But having the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. Current congressional rules are rigged to make it easy to increase spending and next-to-impossible to cut spending. Much of the law that governs the process--the Budget Act of 1974--is tied to rules instead of statutes. Consequently, we routinely waive the Budget Act's requirements to serve our purposes. Can't write a budget? Just waive the rule and move on. No harm, no foul. The "pay as you go" rule has been repeatedly ignored to justify billions of dollars in new spending and tax and fee increases. So we ought to start at square one and give serious consideration to re-visiting, and perhaps re-writing, the 1974 Budget Act.

Of course, it's hard to guarantee a fair debate when the majority has the ability to change bills in the dark of night and literally drop them into the laps of the minority just hours before debate is set to start. Without transparency, lawmakers cannot hold each other accountable, and the American people cannot hold us to account.

That's why in the Pledge to America we say that the text of all bills should be published online for at least three days before coming up for a vote. No exceptions. No excuses.

But this lack of transparency speaks to a larger problem where the Speaker's office has the capacity to unilaterally draft a bill and send it straight through to the Rules Committee.

Woodrow Wilson once said that 'Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, while Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work.' If President Wilson went from committee room to committee room today, he might take that statement back. Because the truth is, much of the work of committees has been co-opted by the leadership. In too many instances, we no longer have legislators; we just have voters.

In my view, if we want to make legislators legislate again, then we need to empower them at the committee level. If Members were more engaged in their committee work, they would be more invested in the final products that come to the floor.

Let's do away with the concept of "comprehensive" spending bills. Let's break them up, to encourage scrutiny, and make spending cuts easier. Rather than pairing agencies and departments together, let them come to the House floor individually, to be judged on their own merit. Members shouldn't have to vote for big spending increases at the Labor Department in order to fund Health and Human Services. Members shouldn't have to vote for big increases at the Commerce Department just because they support NASA. Each Department and agency should justify itself each year to the full House and Senate, and be judged on its own.

For decades, the word "comprehensive" has been used as a positive adjective in Washington. I would respectfully submit that those days are behind us. The American people are not well-served by "comprehensive." In an era of trillion-dollar deficits, we need a tighter focus; one that places an emphasis on getting it right, and less emphasis on getting it done quickly.

So instead of clamping down even further, it's my view that we should open things up and let the battle of ideas help break down the scar tissue between the two parties. Yes, we will still have disagreements. But let's have them out in the open. Yes, we will still try to outmaneuver each other. But let's make it a fair fight. Instead of selling our Members short, let's give them a chance to do their jobs. Let's let legislators legislate again.

Again, structure dictates behavior. More debate and more amendments will mean more intense scrutiny, and ultimately, better legislation.

Just as we've shielded members from tough votes, we've also enabled them to write bad bills. With all the challenges facing our nation, it is absurd that Congress spends so much time on naming post offices, congratulating sports teams, and celebrating the birthdays of historical figures.

Now, I know the drill: members get good press opportunities back home and leaders get cover while stalling on the people's priorities. But often these resolutions are poorly drafted, or duplicative of previously considered bills. And under both parties they've received little or no oversight. It's my view that we should consider taking all these commemorative moments and special honors, and handle them during special orders and one-minute speeches. It's time to focus on doing what we were sent here to do.

Boehner hasn't done much to impress me one way or the other, but it's encouraging to see him advocating for these (non-ideological) structural process changes. Especially when he doesn't need to, since he is very likely to be in the majority next year.

Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi doing proposing anything like this? Of course, we don't need to imagine, because four years after proclaiming the most transparent Congress ever, she hasn't reformed anything.

It's all talk at this point, but Boehner as Speaker along with Paul Ryan chairing the budget committee is encouraging (Jerry Lewis running the appropriations committee is not encouraging, that guy is a snake who should have been primaried).

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

every bill that comes to the floor of the House should contain a clear citation of constitutional authority. If we cannot do this much--we should put down the pen and stop right there.

Great idea! We'll start with the Alien and Sedition Acts!

Congress has been most maligned over the past generation for its fiscal recklessness, and rightly so. Mindful of the dangers of 'taxation without representation,' the Framers handed the power to tax and spend to the legislative branch exclusively. It's right there in Article I, Section 9.

But having the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. Current congressional rules are rigged to make it easy to increase spending and next-to-impossible to cut spending. Much of the law that governs the process--the Budget Act of 1974--is tied to rules instead of statutes. Consequently, we routinely waive the Budget Act's requirements to serve our purposes. Can't write a budget? Just waive the rule and move on. No harm, no foul. The "pay as you go" rule has been repeatedly ignored to justify billions of dollars in new spending and tax and fee increases. So we ought to start at square one and give serious consideration to re-visiting, and perhaps re-writing, the 1974 Budget Act.

Show me where republicans have ever cut the federal budget, or even tried to do so. One instance.

[Commodore]

Great idea! We'll start with the Alien and Sedition Acts!

Your jaded obsession with accepting nothing less than a pure libertarian utopia is misguided. The Alien and Sedition Acts? Joe Arpaio? Really?

You need to pick your battles. Otherwise you're just bitching on message boards all day while Rome burns.

Show me where republicans have ever cut the federal budget, or even tried to do so. One instance.

Like I said, it's all talk at this point. But with these kinds of specifics being promised, the Tea Party will definitely splinter off into a third party movement, if they don't percieve Congress as making a good faith effort to implement them.

[alguien]

John Boehner has some great ideas for reforming the House:

Yes, the Pledge is very original.

[Shryke]

I worked many years ago at ym grandmothers corner store, and there was a penny candy counter.

It was not at all unusual for people to come in several times a day and buy .01 candy with food stamps in order to get the change, which they would later use to buy cigarettes and stuff.

Sounds like some of that has changed. Do they even still use the paper food stamps? Or is it some kind of access card now?

It's like a debit card thing now afaik. Makes it easier to track and enforce the rules and such.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Your jaded obsession with accepting nothing less than a pure libertarian utopia is misguided. The Alien and Sedition Acts? Joe Arpaio? Really?

The Alien and Sedition acts were used as an example that the Federal Government has never felt constrained by the constitution. Acting like you'll make them start now is the misguided utopia.

And I'm not sure what Joe Arpaio has to do with it.

Like I said, it's all talk at this point. But with these kinds of specifics being promised, the Tea Party will definitely splinter off into a third party movement, if they don't percieve Congress as making a good faith effort to implement them.

The republicans whine that there are procedural hurdles for something they have never tried to do. Lets see them actually try to cut the budget and get stopped doing it before they waste our time on bullshit legislation that makes it easier for something they have no interest in ever doing.

[TrackerNeil]

Your jaded obsession with accepting nothing less than a pure libertarian utopia is misguided. The Alien and Sedition Acts? Joe Arpaio? Really?

You need to pick your battles. Otherwise you're just bitching on message boards all day while Rome burns.

This from a guy who thought that Congress' mandating the size and configuration of light bulbs was worse than indefinite detention?

[awesome possum]

I don't know. Maybe that's just in Michigan?

It might be, at least for candy. My wife was a social worker up until early last year, and she would always come home complaining about her clients complaining to her because they'd run out of food stamps by the 20th of every month. When trying to help them budget, she would ask how they spent their stamps and at least 1/4 to 1/3 went to cases of soda, another 1/4 usually on Little Debbie snack cakes, pizza rolls and lunchables.

If any of the third parties are worth a damn shit, they'd get my support. Until they can campaign their way out of a wet paperbag, they'll remain at the kiddie table as far as I'm concerned.

Amen. I voted for the Libertarian candidate for governor in 2008, mostly because the Dems fielded an abomination of a candidate and Mitch Daniels is a giant douchebag. The Libertarian made sense on a lot of issues but then would spice it up with some added crazy. He's have me nodding along with him as he said, "We need to focus more on our schools. If I'm elected, I'll focus half of the state's lottery earnings towards education. We need to legalize medical marijuana. We need to stop corporations from sending jobs overseas. If elected, I'll impose strict taxes on any company that outsources and use that revenue to build or fix our roads and state parks." And he'd follow it up with, "And we need to make the federal government tell us the truth about 9/11 and Area 51."

Sounds like some of that has changed. Do they even still use the paper food stamps? Or is it some kind of access card now?

It's an EBT card now.

[Shryke]

Found this one kind of interesting:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/foreign-chamber-commerce/

The largest attack campaign against Democrats this fall is being waged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade association organized as a 501©(6) that can raise and spend unlimited funds without ever disclosing any of its donors. The Chamber has promised to spend an unprecedented $75 million to defeat candidates like Jack Conway, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jerry Brown, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA). As of Sept. 15th, the Chamber had aired more than 8,000 ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates alone, according to a study from the Wesleyan Media Project. The Chamber’s spending has dwarfed every other issue group and most political party candidate committee spending. A ThinkProgress investigation has found that the Chamber funds its political attack campaign out of its general account, which solicits foreign funding. And while the Chamber will likely assert it has internal controls, foreign money is fungible, permitting the Chamber to run its unprecedented attack campaign. According to legal experts consulted by ThinkProgress, the Chamber is likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections.

[ThinkerX]

This just makes me want to become a corporate whore more than ever. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

You do realize that you cannot trust them, and that if they see any advantage to it at all, they will dispose of you, right? The governing mentality of corporations is psychopathic.

[ThinkerX]

The Head Fed tells the truth...

and nobody listens:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/bernanke-tells-truth-united-states-is.html

Let me return to the issue of longer-term fiscal sustainability. As I have discussed, projections by the CBO and others show future budget deficits and debts rising indefinitely, and at increasing rates. To be sure, projections are to some degree only hypothetical exercises. Almost by definition, unsustainable trajectories of deficits and debts will never actually transpire, because creditors would never be willing to lend to a country in which the fiscal debt relative to the national income is rising without limit. Herbert Stein, a wise economist, once said, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."⁹ One way or the other, fiscal adjustments sufficient to stabilize the federal budget will certainly occur at some point. The only real question is whether these adjustments will take place through a careful and deliberative process that weighs priorities and gives people plenty of time to adjust to changes in government programs or tax policies, or whether the needed fiscal adjustments will be a rapid and painful response to a looming or actual fiscal crisis

The recent deep recession and the subsequent slow recovery have created severe budgetary pressures not only for many households and businesses, but for governments as well. Indeed, in the United States, governments at all levels are grappling not only with the near-term effects of economic weakness, but also with the longer-run pressures that will be generated by the need to provide health care and retirement security to an aging population. There is no way around it--meeting these challenges will require policymakers and the public to make some very difficult decisions and to accept some sacrifices. But history makes clear that countries that continually spend beyond their means suffer slower growth in incomes and living standards and are prone to greater economic and financial instability

He goes on and on in that vein.

[Ormond]

"We need to stop corporations from sending jobs overseas. If elected, I'll impose strict taxes on any company that outsources and use that revenue to build or fix our roads and state parks."

Did the national Libertarian party not disown him for that one? I would think raising taxes to discourage a corporation from sending jobs anywhere it wants to would be anathema to most Libertarians. And they'd want all the state parks privatized, wouldn't they?

[awesome possum]

Did the national Libertarian party not disown him for that one? I would think raising taxes to discourage a corporation from sending jobs anywhere it wants to would be anathema to most Libertarians. And they'd want all the state parks privatized, wouldn't they?

I suppose there was a reason I never even heard of the guy outside of the few local debates I saw him in.

[Reek]

Commodore, I didn't make it any farther than this:

Consequently, we routinely waive the Budget Act's requirements to serve our purposes. Can't write a budget? Just waive the rule and move on. No harm, no foul. The "pay as you go" rule has been repeatedly ignored to justify billions of dollars in new spending and tax and fee increases.

I mean seriously... Congress HAD pay-as-you-go and a balanced budget by the end of the Clinton administration. I think it is fair to lay the blame squarely on the republicans for unsustainable tax cuts for the highest 2% of earners and 'emergency funding' for two expensive wars.

I agree with the point he is making but I think it is more than a tad hypocritical for him to raise it as the reason why congress is broken.

I couldn't make it any farther because my BS meter was off the charts.

[awesome possum]

I couldn't make it any farther because my BS meter was off the charts.

Well honestly, the combination of Commodore posting it and the subject being a promise by John Boehner should have had anyone's BS meter blasting at deafening levels.

[Lord O' Bones]

Well honestly, the combination of Commodore posting it and the subject being a promise by John Boehner should have had anyone's BS meter blasting at deafening levels.

Just because Commodore is a drive by poster doesn't mean what he posts is irrelevant.

Still something to address.

Not to mention (totally to mention) the use of honestly.

Seriously, if you're not full of shit most of the time, stop using the disclaimer "honestly."

[awesome possum]

Just because Commodore is a drive by poster doesn't mean what he posts is irrelevant.

Still something to address.

Not to mention (totally to mention) the use of honestly.

Seriously, if you're not full of shit most of the time, stop using the disclaimer "honestly."

Honestly, I'm only full of shit some of the time. Honestly.

[Lord O' Bones]

Honestly, I'm only full of shit some of the time. Honestly.

To be honest, I don't know how to respond to this.

But I won't.