March 07, 2011
— Ace I always say that substance now is much, much better than some procedural change which is hoped to make cuts easier in the future.
But that's not to say the latter is useless.
Given our Appropriations Committee is, as usual, staffed with Appropriators, maybe this could be a useful bit of pushback.
Udall’s backing of the “anti-appropriations committee” is one of the most significant moves to embrace spending cuts by a moderate Democrat in the Senate and gives the proposal momentum and cover from potential critics, insiders say.
...The committee itself would consist of six Republicans and six Democrats. At least once a year, the committee would introduce legislation to reduce or eliminate duplicative or wasteful programs that would receive an up-or-down vote under the “reconciliation” rules that prevent a filibuster.
Crucially, the committee would also have subpoena power to investigate potentially wasteful government programs.
...
“Many government programs were created with good intentions, but in too many cases, Congress has also created other redundant and sometimes wasteful programs rather than strategically targeting resources where they’re needed,” Udall said in a written statement. “An ‘un-authorizing’ committee would add teeth to our efforts to streamline our government, pare down our national budget, save taxpayers’ dollars and strengthen the private economy by making sure the government is as lean as ever.”
It's something.
Posted by: Ace at
01:06 PM
| Comments (61)
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.
It's another committee. If it can find more things to cut than it will spend, I'm for it. If it grinds and makes noise and in the end can't pass squat, it's a net increase in expenditures.
Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at March 07, 2011 01:09 PM (RekTL)
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to implement this suggestion and show tangible savings through "un-appropriating" unnecessary programs between now and the Republican primary in Utah.
If you fail in your mission, you will be disavowed by the Republican party.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at March 07, 2011 01:10 PM (CTd2k)
The Professor advises the constitutional committee to think of new ways to run a legislature in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
One suggestion is to have one house that creates legislation, and one house to repeal it. It requires a two-thirds majority to pass a law, but only one-third is needed to repeal a law, because, if a law is so obnoxious that even one third feel it oppresses them, how can it be just?
Again, Heinlein is ahead of us all!
No, I'm sorry, I haven't the least which political philosopher he snagged that idea from. I will take enlightenment, if offered.
Posted by: Dianna at March 07, 2011 01:11 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at March 07, 2011 01:11 PM (CTd2k)
Posted by: grognard at March 07, 2011 01:11 PM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 07, 2011 01:12 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: grognard at March 07, 2011 01:12 PM (NS2Mo)
I was not terminated by Warner Brothers., but chose to exercise my option to leave the series to spend more time with my floozies and working on my deviated septum.
Posted by: Charlie Sheen, Ho Monger at March 07, 2011 01:13 PM (ZHsNw)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 07, 2011 01:13 PM (q8u+l)
.I'm shocked he's actually saying the right thing even if he doesn't mean them. And given the uselessness of the cuts proposed so far (61 billion doesn't really do much to fix a 1500 billion deficit does it?) any movement in the right direction seems worthwhile.
Yes, Udall will probably crap out on the whole thing; yes it's likely a show for the voters to pretend to be serious. So what?
Given a committee with the power to subpoena information and tasked with the goal of cutting government... can't we try to use that to do what it's supposed to do (even if it wasn't supposed to be taken serious by the people who proposed it)?
It seems like a good chance for something useful in the future; even if (as seems likely) neither of these two schmucks are really all that serious about cuts.
Posted by: gekkobear at March 07, 2011 01:14 PM (X0NX1)
It's something.
Potentially it can be something.
Committees are the hesistator's way around doing actual work. Why work and do something substantial when you can form a committee to "study" the problem and have it issue a worthless recommendation 3, 4, 5 years down the line?
We already know there's at least 200 billion in replicate gov't spending. Do we need a committee to stop that? Cut that now without delay, for heaven's sake!
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 07, 2011 01:14 PM (9hSKh)
Is it really this complex?
If your car's gas tank had a hole in it, would you:
a) Repair the tank immediately.
b) Assemble a committee to analyze and discuss the leaky gas tank?
Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 07, 2011 01:18 PM (uFokq)
"The minute somebody joins a committee...they immediately suffer from committee brain. They become wildly over-enthusiastic, over optimistic, over pessimistic. Committees turn people into idiots and politics is a committee." -- P.J. O'Rourke.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 07, 2011 01:18 PM (7utQ2)
The House Budget Committee can and should do that in the next budget. Why do we need a committee that would let future budget committees and appropriators off-the-hook when it comes to their responsibilities? Creating more committees is just like adding more laws. We need budgetary and appropriation mechanism reforms, not more committees.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 07, 2011 01:18 PM (q8u+l)
Posted by: Nemo from Erewhon at March 07, 2011 01:18 PM (Vj8uW)
In other words they are not actually going to reduce government intrusion into our lives or the economy. They are just going to be a more efficient intrusive nanny state.
Posted by: Can you get Trichinosis from undercooked Bieber? at March 07, 2011 01:18 PM (F/4zf)
Anything spent over the amount we take in comes immediately off their backs.
Posted by: nickless at March 07, 2011 01:19 PM (MMC8r)
This will get your blood boiling. 18 minutes of NYPD film.
http://tinyurl.com/4fhu6cx
Posted by: Kemp at March 07, 2011 01:19 PM (JpFM9)
Committees don't just cost money.
They WASTE TIME.
And time is money, especially when our budget is hemorrhaging dollars at an alarming rate.
Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 07, 2011 01:20 PM (uFokq)
Posted by: Darth Hatch at March 07, 2011 01:20 PM (4mkxL)
Posted by: someguy at March 07, 2011 01:21 PM (YiDNR)
Before: "We have to do something and we have do it NOW!!!"
Now: "Maybe we should start a committee to look into this issue."
Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 07, 2011 01:21 PM (uFokq)
PS- Instead, how about an actual budget that isn't in deficit. Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 07, 2011 01:22 PM (qqrPQ)
I just noted the time and date for posterity.
Someguy and I just agreed on something. LET THE HERALDS SING!!!
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 07, 2011 01:23 PM (7utQ2)
With six Pubbies and six Dims, I doubt much of anything will get done. They'd do better with twelve randomly appointed Morons...
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 07, 2011 01:23 PM (b6qrg)
That kind of incentive ought to attract just the right kind of cutthroat scumbags required to do the job properly.
Posted by: VA Gator at March 07, 2011 01:24 PM (SGgrv)
It's like Cincinnati Microwave and radar detectors here. You have one branch making police radars and another branch making consumer detectors. The Federal version is to make even more committees to insert themselves.
If the Feds were trustworthy, then this would be "something." Alas, they aren't. Programs could be cut without an extra committee doing the suggesting. What's the purpose of the other committees in the first place?
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 07, 2011 01:26 PM (swuwV)
Posted by: Can you get Trichinosis from undercooked Orrin Hatch? at March 07, 2011 01:27 PM (F/4zf)
If they are looking for ideas of things to cut, read a fucking blog every now and then and offer an amendment.Why not just create one of those ad-hoc gangs they are so fond of if they want to do this?
Still, unless and until you cut so-called 'entitlements' if all fucking window dressing and institutional masturbation anyway.
Posted by: DrewM. at March 07, 2011 01:28 PM (HicGG)
Posted by: Senate Select Committee on Committees in charge of Committees at March 07, 2011 01:28 PM (b6qrg)
They're stalling.
This is a stall tactic. They don't want to cut spending. They think we're stupid.
Stupid people in Washington think we're stupid.
Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 07, 2011 01:29 PM (uFokq)
Posted by: PJ at March 07, 2011 01:30 PM (QdxaI)
Where might I find this Institution?
Posted by: Waterhouse has a GPS receive and a full tank of gas at March 07, 2011 01:30 PM (4mkxL)
Its easy to come up with these ideas. Or they could do their damn job and balance it themselves. It almost doesn't even matter what they spend it on anymore, we are in a debt spiral and it is speeding up. Even the repubs talking about balancing the budget in 5 years. Like we have that much time.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 07, 2011 01:30 PM (qqrPQ)
Posted by: kansas at March 07, 2011 01:34 PM (mka2b)
Posted by: nickless at March 07, 2011 01:35 PM (MMC8r)
This is a stall tactic. They don't want to cut spending. They think we're stupid.
Stupid people in Washington think we're stupid.
All the Senate really does anymore is stall. The House does all the work and the Senate proceeds to trash their work while asking for a committee to help them decide. They don't like to get their hands dirty.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 07, 2011 01:36 PM (q8u+l)
Posted by: someguy at March 07, 2011 01:37 PM (YiDNR)
It's just lip service. When does a comittee ever work? Dog and pony show time, yet again.
How about we just scrap the entire Federal system and start over? Sounds just about as realistic as getting something out of yet another show comittee.
Posted by: soulpile is... expendable at March 07, 2011 01:43 PM (gH+Hj)
"My friends, this deficit is killing us. We are headed for insolvency. The time for action is now!"
*hharumph harumph*
"Suggestions?"
"We try something new. We form...a blue ribbon panel!"
"Of course, it's so simple!"
*rabble rabble harumph*
six months later
"What are the results of the blue ribbon panel?"
"Well, we've saved over $300,000 on uniforms for service personnel. We switched to a new fabric that is only 95% the cost, the only downside is it reacts with water, sweat and air to form an acidic epoxy that explodes on impact. The new DADT mandated band of Thebes had an ass-slapping night...it wasn't pretty."
"Well, we all must sacrifice."
"On an unrelated note, here is our expense report...$3.4mil for catering, $70mil to form advisory panels to the committee, $100mil for tee-time reservations, $50mil additional pay and overtime for the senators, $400mil for committee and advisory panel retreats to 'Madam Minka's House of Discipline'-fiscal restraint training sessions."
"$400 million?"
"We needed a lot of training for fiscal discipline."
And scene.
Posted by: AlexC at March 07, 2011 01:48 PM (UCq8q)
Posted by: chillin the most at March 07, 2011 01:50 PM (6IV8T)
Posted by: that guy that compliments other's obscure cultural references at March 07, 2011 01:53 PM (GTbGH)
1) Gives everyone else an excuse to not solve the problem of us going fucking broke by saying it's up to the committee.
2) Gives Democrats who want us to go fucking broke (no fucking talkback, they DO) a greater voice in the committe than in the house.
3) Meets once a year like they were picking a fucking prom queen and not trying to solve our national insolvency.
Back to the fucking drawing board, assholes.
Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at March 07, 2011 02:47 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: bonhomme at March 07, 2011 02:52 PM (yN8NS)
Posted by: DaMav at March 07, 2011 03:07 PM (QNU76)
Posted by: kokka at March 23, 2011 04:14 AM (iWRab)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2104 seconds, 189 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Your optimism takes my breath away, Ace.
At best, I give it "It could be something." I like the idea, but we'll see how it plays out in execution. I'd rather it be a real committee (that is, more of the party in power than the minority party- even with Dems in control at the moment).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 07, 2011 01:08 PM (8y9MW)