Dems Just Dont Get It

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1295 ... s-practice

Sure, earmarks are what... maybe 2% of Federal spending? But the symbolism is much more important. Dems scoffing at the idea of non-pork spending, and Reid saying he has a responsiblity to nevada (he does, but he has a greater responsiblity to the nation) just reinforces why Americans kicked them out of office. If the projects are THAT important, bring them up as a separate spending bill and let everyone vote on them, but don't bury them in a larger budget bill.

I'm glad both Obama and the Reps are on the same page on this. A chance for bi-partisanship on common ground.

[Kulaf]

It would be more impressive if they worked on a legitimate line item veto for the President.

[Embar Angylwrath]

It would be more impressive if they worked on a legitimate line item veto for the President.

Not sure that would pass Constitutional muster... but lets look at it if it would.

Every Congress would parse out spending allocations on a per project basis. Think about that.

[Ddrak]

The President should definitely NOT have a line-item veto. That would lead to the President controlling the budget by simply vetoing whatever parts he didn't like and completely changing the meaning of bills.

If you want to curb riders then do the same thing we do over here - force line-item votes in the house/senate. It has the double effect of limiting the size of the bills unless the politicians happen to enjoy staying up all night voting on crap.

Dd

[Kulaf]

The President should definitely NOT have a line-item veto. That would lead to the President controlling the budget by simply vetoing whatever parts he didn't like and completely changing the meaning of bills.

If you want to curb riders then do the same thing we do over here - force line-item votes in the house/senate. It has the double effect of limiting the size of the bills unless the politicians happen to enjoy staying up all night voting on crap.

Dd

In effect that is what a functional line item veto would be Dd. The President would veto sections of spending bills forcing them back to the Legislature to be voted on independent of the original passed legislation.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I really dont like that option because the President (if his party is in power) can keep politically attractive spending for his party while castrating the spending suggestions of the opposite party. It would render the budget almost meaningless, since there wouldn't have to be much compromise. For example, if the line item veto existed in the form which you describe, the Dems this year could have sent a spending bill to Obama loaded with all kinds of crap, and let the Reps load it up too, knowing that Obama would line-item a lot of the Rep spending suggestions and keeping the Dems... especially in an election year.

Also, I don't buy the lobbyists (and some politicians) claim that by not having earmarks it gives too much spending authority to the President. Again, if a project is that damned important, bring it up for a vote on the floor and send it to the President independently. Problem solved.

[Lurker]

This post by Kevin Drum seems to fit well with this thread. Seems that the Republican Tea Party leaders complaining loudest about Government spending have no desire to actually tackle the problem. They are all about symbolism, but when it actually comes time to make the decisions and cut spending in a meaningful way they have little or no interest in doing so.

Drum concludes (and here's the part that fits nicely with this thread)...

How long will the rank-and-file tea partiers continue to fall for this charade? Long enough, I suppose. The faux earmark ban should hold everyone at bay for a few weeks, and a well-considered selection of other meaningless symbolic votes should keep everyone on board as long as they're staggered appropriately throughout the year. It's a fine line to walk, but I guess I feel pretty confident that the Republican leadership can pull it off.

The Republican Party has long been masters at meaningless symbolism and dubing their rank-and-file members. No doubt about it.

[Partha]

What people don't seem to understand is that getting rid of earmarks does not reduce the amount of money going to the states. The only thing it does is take the ability of the Representative to steer that money into projects he lists and gives it to the President.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Lurker.. are you saying that earmark elimination is meaningless symbolism?

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45365.html

Too funny... DCCC telling Dems that the DCCC saved many of them from themselves. If that ain't finger pointing...!

[Lurker]

Lurker.. are you saying that earmark elimination is meaningless symbolism?

My position on earmarks hasn't changed. As I've said in the past, earmarks are directed spending of money that has already been allocated and eliminating them wouldn't save money. Only a tiny percentage of earmarks could be considered "pork" or wasteful. While we need as much transparency in the process as possible to make sure the money is spent wisely and the projects are actually needed, an outright earmark elimination is meaningless symbolism and could even cause economic damage.

And yes, I know Obama made statements of support for earmark reform. If he's calling for more transparency than he's already provided then I agree. If he's calling for elimination of earmarks then I disagree and he's engaging in meaningless symbolism.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I guess itss the term "meaningless symbolism" that has me confused. Symbols are usually not intrinsically valuable, yet have other value outside their intrinsic worth. Much the same here. Cutting two percent of spending isnt that much, but the message it sends because of the perception of earmarks is huge. I think youre missing that.

[Lurker]

Eliminating earmarks wouldn't cut 2% of spending, it would just mean that spending wasn't directed. We've been over this and over this in the past.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Thats a correct statement. But when you and others say "directed", I say "misdirected". Elimination of earmarks would help reduce "misdirected" spending. And you missed the point about the power of symbolism.

[Lurker]

Thanks for acknowleging that eliminating earmarks wouldn't reduce spending.

Elimination of earmarks would help reduce "misdirected" spending.

How do you know that? I think having a transparent earmark process would be a better check against misdirected spending than just eliminating earmarks and handing over money with no direction.

And you missed the point about the power of symbolism.

Your point was tied to the incorrect statement that eliminating earmarks would reduce spending by 2%. Meaningless symbolism is pretending to solve a problem by calling for measures that do nothing while simultaneously taking other positions that make the problem exponentially worse. And that's exactly what the Republicans are doing.

[Partha]

You know, a long time ago, in a land far, far away, there was a leader who was given money to support his troops in one country, but instead of doing that, he instead moved more troops to a DIFFERENT country even though he wasn't supposed to by law.

It was quiet then, as if millions of teatard voices had been stilled.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Just like the "Libtards" before them?

[Ddrak]

Earmarks themselves aren't the problem. The problem is they typically get tacked onto other unrelated legislation instead of having their own bill for legislators to vote on separately.

Dd