-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/spending_the_expletive_out_of_our_tax_dollars -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
This sort of thing has to stop.
Democrats suck big time. but isn't kinda sad when today's line coming from Republicans reads as "we suck but still definetly vote for us because the other guy sucks way more!"
"we spend like crazy, but so will the other guy"
The GOP has come a long way in spending the past year or two and is the only party which a chance of slimming down. You'll never get that from the Democrats, but you just might with the GOP as the base demands it more and more...
Examples please?
Regards...
It instead seems to be focusing on 'Gay marriage. San Francisco. Palosi, be scared ..very scared!!'
Look at discretionary spending pre and post Bush. Here is a summary.
Some of you guys on this blog seem to have the idea that congress is acting like little children who just broke in the candy jar: However, the facts are different, with unfortunately neither the left or right wing press interested in circulating them.
The reality is that discretionary spending has been rained in year-to-year since Bush came in office, with each year getting a bit better than the last (compared to the insanity of the last year of Clinton's budget).
The true growth in our budget, other than military spending for Iraq, in the last 6 years has come solely from growth in entitlement spending.
Don't you rememeber the past year or so the couple of times that the GOP has brought up budget cuts for votes? Look, it's not like they are cutting actual spending but they are doing much better than they have the first few years of Bush's term with Medicare and all that huge increases in spending...
Be scared, ..very scared!! :-)
My chagrin is that I hear very little 'here is our record for the last two years. Vote for us!' from the Republicans.
I hope you weren't expect the MSM to parade examples. That's not what they do, when the GOP is in office.
From what I've heard, the White House has already completed nearly ever legislative goal for the second term, with the exceptions of Social Security Reform (immigration was not listed as one of their priorities in 2004).
Yes.
We must never let them have power back. I'll do all I can to prevent it. Not that it matters that much.
I can try.
And that's okay? I dunno about you, but I didn't vote the critters into office so they'd hold down discretionary spending (which is peanuts by comparison). I voted 'em in to deal with the entitlement programs. Didn't you?
Regards...
Protecting agriculture in the Midwest is protecting New York -DHS
Fact Check
True, however there's no way for the Republicans alone to change the entitlement programs. (Even if they got 100% cooperation from every Republican)
With the Demoncrats locked-stepped the way they are it's not going to get fixed.
However the solution isn't to elect more Demoncrats.
.is it funding for Our War Against Terror, Intitlement Spending, Discretionary Spending, or anything else?
How would you classify it?
However the solution isn't to elect more Demoncrats.
The solution is to elect more Republicans!!
It also points to the fact that we need to spend less political capital on earmarked programs, which, although they make big fat targets, are only a tiny fraction of the problem.
What is lacking is a serious proposal on how to get entitlement programs under control. As The Whistler points out, Republicans don't have a lock on congressional power, and can't achieve anything without help from the Democrats.
Who of course cheered, when Bush mentioned the defeat of his Social Security reform program. Wow.
More Republicans in the mold of Representative Harold Rogers!!
Mr. Rogers is a member of the House APPROPRIATIONS Committee and "the first chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, which is responsible for FUNDING and oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)." -his bio
As unimportant in amount, and not worth expending any political capital on.
Our total budget is $1.4 trillion. The amounts being discussed don't even scratch the dust on our current budget.
At some point, we have to trust our administration and congressmen to make wise choices with how they spend their individual funds. If they do a poor job, they should be fired. Watching how the pennies get spent is called "micromanaging" in my book. To the degree that oversight is necessary, it looks like it's working in this case, so no reason for me to sweat.
The issue for the voter is "how does the overall pattern of spending look"?
This is a policy question who's answer all Americans should participate in, IMHO.
Thank You for your well thought out response.
Exactly! And this is where I fault them all, but especially the Republicans. There is not now--nor has there ever been--a serious, all-encompassing proposal on how to get entitlement programs under control.
Much like with illegal immigration, they deal with it piecemeal so they can bob and weave and accomplish nothing while looking like they're addressing the issue.
IF there was a serious proposal on how to address the entire entitilement monster, the voters could actually build some steam behind it.
All I'm willing to do at this point is damn the critters with faint praise for their minimal discretionay restraint.
My original point remains.
Regards...
The Republicans (not just the legislators or the President) have squandered their time worrying about "pork spending" without even understanding what the money (in toto) was spent on and what fraction was being wasted. That's just poor strategy in my mind.
I think this PorkBusters meme is a bust from a policy standpoint... it distracts from the real problems that need to be addressed.
In terms of history, the only major reform of entitlement spending came from the Republican party. The second major reform was squelched by the Democrats. Unless you get 60 Republican senators or a change in Senate rules, how do you propose to pass such a piece of legislation?
On to other issues:
Have you seen any proposals from think-tanks on the issue of entitlement reform? It seems to be a question that has been lost on both sides.
It's quite complicated, because you have to look at what is driving the percentage of entitlement spending (spiraling medical costs, an aging population, etc(?)) before you can expect to ameliorate the problem.
Correction,
LESS Republicans in the mold of incumbent Senator Lincoln Chaffe (R-RI) and more Republicans in the mold of Stephen Laffey,
In a move that will surely bring a humored smile to many fiscal conservatives' faces, Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) is out with a new television ad calling himself "the most fiscally responsible senator in the nation." The ad, which targets fiscal conservative Stephen Laffey, who had to raise Cranston, RI taxes within days of becoming mayor in order to avoid financial default for the municipality, tries to say Linc is a good steward and Laffey is a repeat tax hiker...
I would go so far as to say that electing Democrats will simply ensure increased entitlement spending (up to ~10% GDP from 2% GDP 40 years ago), and no fiscal control on discretionary spending.
And, for what it's worth, an open border policy and socialized medicine.
Exactly right. And neither side is willing to even start the process, much less try to stir the public.
I'll be damned if I'll give them anything other than faint praise for doing something as simple as putting a partial lid on discretionary spending.
Regards...
And why do you think going from +15% growth in discretionary spending in 2001 (making it the fastest growing segment of the budget) to -2% is worthy of only "faint praise"?
Who controlled both houses (the House of Reps and the White House) in 2001?
The President wrongly claimed he cut the growth of discretionary spending. Reality: the growth rate multiplied.
The 2001 budget was written in 2000, not 2001. It was the last Clinton Budget.
Meaning that we all like to talk tough about cutting spending until we're talking about cutting spending we like or take advantage of.
That is if each elected official were given a certain amount of money (for the size of the state) to designate. The problem I see is that the whole process is grab as much as you can.
If earmarks are eliminated the Congress will find other ways to distribute pork such as lobbying each agency for their pet projects.
Frankly I think the elected representatives should have some say on how the money is spent. It must be eliminated and subject to scrutiny.
Earmarks are highly visible, easy targets, but how much of the money spent on them is wasted? Not all (or even most) go for stupid things like bridges/railroads to nowhere.
I think that most people have bought into a bill of goods by the MSM and perhaps elements of the Democratic Party, who would prefer you spend your energy there, rather than tackling the elephant in the room of entitlement spending.
If we fail to fix entitlement spending, we have a huge issue down the road. It's already gone from 2% of GDP in 1960 to over 10% this last year. Given how our economy is growing...that should be a bit sobering.
Agree with that. The problem is entitlements. However with the Democrats in lock-step and the Old-Partisan Media practicing mediscare techniques we aren't going to reform entitlements.
IMO Social Security was the best chance as it really is our money for our benefit. However the Republicans in Congress were somewhat lukewarm supporting the change with the Demoncrats in obstruction mode.
I really don't know what the political fix is.
The argument goes like this, who is more qualified to determine what needs improved in your state, your senator or the entire congress, or for that matter, a highly bureaucratic federal agency?
The congressman himself does not make the decisions where to spend their portion of the discretionary budget allotted to their state, rather they have staffers who are experts in different areas, who report to them and make recommendations. These staffers in turn, get feedback from business leaders and intelligencia in their distict as to which are "burning" issues. Based on seniority level, which committees the congressman is on, etc, he then can place more or less earmarked money for these specific programs.
If he fails to fix the "burning issues" he gets blamed for it and voted out of office. Thus there is already a self-correction mechanism for earmarked funds. Keep in mind, if you relegate it to e.g., the federal DOT, EPA, DOE etc., you likely will never see a dime of that money, which likely will get spent on based primarily on the regional administrator's interests and pet peeves.
Put another way, while not perfect, earmarked funds are a strange example of distributed government. The opposite, federal agency spending, typically is more bureaucratic and centralized (the USDA is an exception).
There is waste (obviously) as well as underhandedness (such as tacking on farm aid to a bill meant to appropriate funds for Katrina/Iraq).
Perhaps a better way to handle this would be to develop a system whereby the various state legislatures come up with a "wish list" of local funding projects that could then be voted on by the federal Congress as an omnibus spending package.
But still, entitlement spending should be priority #1 for those concerned with combatting government spending.
Look back at the 44 entries to this comment thread. Courtesy, reasoned argument, well thought out. If our congress only did what happens here we would have real government.
That's why I love this blog so much. Kudos to all, you can be proud.
Thanks from me for your humanity and well mannered behavior. It gives me hope for the future.
Perhaps the internet is how governing will happen in the future with good people like this.
Who knows. Maybe we are seeing the future.
Couldn't be worse than what is Washington now.
Regards...