|
[<< Previous 20 entries]
|
10:21 am
![[User Picture] height=](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3328540/398316) |
republican leadership now *saying* that they don't approve of pork
the republican party have elected a replacement for tom delay of "there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget" fame as majority leader in the senate。 john boehner was not the reformers' choice， but nor is he the business-as-usual candidate。 here are some of boehner's words from during his campaign：
We must start by addressing the growing practice of unauthorized earmarks--language in spending bills that directs federal dollars to private entities for projects that are not tied to an existing federal program or purpose. The public knows the practice better by a different name--pork-barreling. Unauthorized earmarks squander taxpayer dollars and lack transparency. They feed public cynicism. They've been a driving force in the ongoing growth of our already gargantuan federal government, and a major factor in government's increasing detachment from the priorities of individual Americans. Earmarks have also fueled the growth of the lobbying industry. Entire firms have been built around the practice. As more entities circumvent the normal competitive process, confidence in the system erodes, encouraging others to take the same shortcuts.
Many pork-barrel provisions are inserted into legislation at the last minute to ensure passage, and relatively few members get a chance to see them before actually voting. My Republican colleague, Jeff Flake of Arizona, has bold ideas to solve this problem. He proposes that the earmarking process be transparent: All earmarks should be included in the actual text of legislation, so members can see them before they vote. He believes, as I do, that this would make it much harder to adopt earmarks that can't be substantively justified, while also allowing earmarks that are legitimate. I think Mr. Flake is off to a strong start, and I support his efforts.
I'd like to go even further, though. Last week, in a letter to David Dreier, the House Rules Committee chairman and the speaker's point man on lobbying reform, I called for a ban on earmarks that serve lobbying interests at the expense of the public interest. We need to establish some clear standards by which worthy projects can be distinguished from worthless pork, so that pork projects can be halted in their tracks as soon as they are identified. For example, earmarks should meet the specific purpose of the authorizing statute. They should not give a private entity a competitive edge unless it is in the immediate national security interest of the country. They should not be a substitute for state and local fiscal responsibility. They should be used sparingly, and ideally, they should be a one-time appropriation for a specific national need. his words are slippery and don't go nearly as far as the reformers would like， but it is an improvement and i have little doubt the pressure will force further adjustments。 there are also the likes of coburn's cog-jamming plans to keep the light coming should boehner prove less than honourable。
here is a similar statement from the reformers' choice， john shadegg。 although more pointed， it strikes me as pretty shallow and politically naive。 i don't think his coming third should be particularly surprising， nor do i think it is much to mourn about。
here is the statement from the business-as-usual candidate， roy blunt。 his statement makes no reference to corruption or pork， but is instead a stream of slimy self-congratulatory pap。 i think we can safely be glad that blunt only got second。
meanwhile， bush is also moving onto the anti-pork bandwagon and apparently promising to veto earmarks if give line-item veto powers：
I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. (Applause.) And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto. (Applause.) so far only the words are moving， which is still better than them not moving： now we have their words to remind them of should they be foolish enough to try to bury the issue。
Current Mood:  tired
Current Music: Huey Lewis & The News - Hip To Be Square
|
| |
02:17 pm
|
coburn: "remove the pork or i'll jam the cogs"
coburn's anti-pork campaigning is apparently moving up a notch：
To rein in wasteful spending, Dr. Coburn intends to offer an amendment on every pork project stuffed into appropriations bills this year. There were at least 13,998 earmarked projects contained in last year’s appropriations bills. By way of comparison, the Senate had only 366 roll call votes last year. Needless to say we are beefing up our appropriations staff for this challenge and we have requested that we be given at least 72 hours to review appropriations bills before they are considered. sounds like a very useful start。 meanwhile， here is a long and interesting item on how the corruption spreads far and wide。 all that is needed is light， continuous steady bright light。
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: [none]
|
| |
07:56 am
|
how politics really works, the patriot act as an example
i have never taken much interest in the patriot act， or in the hysteria that pervades most discussion of that law。 i have a great deal of faith in america's ability to reform itself if neccessary； i have little sympathy with most campaigners' fundamentalist attitudes toward civil rights； and more importantly， i tend to tune out the moonbats of this world： they may talk sense once in a green sun， but who has the time or energy to discover those supposed gems？
yesterday， my head told me that now is the time to do a bit of work， which i started by reading this fascinating floor speech by democratic senator feingold。 feingold was the coauthor (with republican senator mccain) of the recent campaign finance reform laws that have had a number of presumably unintended negative consequences。 these consequences are often overplayed by the fundamentalist wing of the republican party in order to damage mccain and feingold： both fairly moderate possible contenders for their respective party's nomination。 feingold gives the impression of being a well-meaning idealist specialising in anti-corruption and civil liberties law； like most well-meaning idealists， he has a tendency to not to take the real world into account when trying out his brilliant ideas。
feingold's speech has much detail on the congressional political process and on problems with the patriot act。 first on the political process：
Mr. President, because I was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001, I want to be very clear from the start. I am not opposed to reauthorization of the Patriot Act. I supported the bipartisan, compromise reauthorization bill that the Senate passed earlier this year without a single Senator objecting. I believe that bill should become law. The Senate reauthorization bill is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. If that were the bill we were considering today, I would be here on the floor speaking in support of it. In fact, we could have reauthorized the Patriot Act months ago if the House had taken up the bill that the Senate approved without any objections.
I also want to respond to those who argue that people who are demanding a better conference report want to let the Patriot Act expire. That is nonsense. Not a single member of this body is calling for any provision of the Patriot Act to expire. As Senator Sununu eloquently argued yesterday, just because we are coming up against the end of the year does not mean we should have to compromise the rights of law-abiding Americans. There are any number of ways that we can get this done and get it done right before the end of the year.
Let me also be clear about how we ended up voting on a badly flawed conference report just days before certain provisions of the Patriot Act expire. The only reason that we are debating this conference report in the middle of December, rather than the middle of September or October, is because the House refused to appoint its conferees for three and a half months. It passed its reauthorization bill on July 21, but didn’t appoint conferees until November 9. In the Senate, on the other hand, we passed a bill by unanimous consent on July 29 and appointed conferees the very same day. We were ready and willing to start the process of resolving our differences with the House right away, leaving plenty of time to get this done without the pressure of the end of the year deadline. next on the contended section 215：
Section 215 is at the center of this debate over the Patriot Act. It is also one of the provisions that I tried unsuccessfully to amend here on this floor in October 2001. So it makes sense to start my discussion of the specific problems I have with the conference report with the infamous “library” provision.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain secret court orders in domestic intelligence investigations to get all kinds of business records about people, including not just library records, but also medical records and various other types of business records. The Patriot Act allowed the government to obtain these records as long as they were "sought for" a terrorism investigation. That’s a very low standard. It didn’t require that the records concern someone who was suspected of being a terrorist or spy, or even suspected of being connected to a terrorist or spy. It didn’t require any demonstration of how the records would be useful in the investigation. Under Section 215, if the government simply said it wanted records for a terrorism investigation the secret FISA court was required to issue the order -- period. To make matters worse, recipients of these orders are also subject to an automatic gag order. They cannot tell anyone that they have been asked for records.
Now some in the Administration, and even in this body, took the position that people shouldn’t be able to criticize these provisions until they could come up with a specific example of “abuse.” The Attorney General makes that same argument today in an op-ed in the Washington Post when he dismisses concerns about the Patriot Act by saying that “[t]here have been no verified civil liberties abuses in the four years of the act's existence.” That has always struck me as a strange argument since 215 orders are issued by a secret court and people who receive them are prohibited by law from discussing them. In other words, the law is designed so that it’s almost impossible to know if abuses have occurred. [...]
The Senate bill also would give recipients of a 215 order an explicit, meaningful right to challenge business record orders and the accompanying gag orders in court. These provisions passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously after tough negotiations late into the night.
The conference report did away with this delicate compromise. i can't yet be bothered to read the patriot act and i doubt that most， if any， of the vocal commentators on either side have。 however， my understanding now is that the patriot act is in most parts mostly harmless， and in fact could be considered necessary。 only small parts of the act have sunset clauses set to expire soon and those are the parts currently under debate。 in fact， the extension of those parts was rejected yesterday：
The 52-47 roll call by which the Senate voted to reject reauthorization of several provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Sixty votes were needed to overcome a filibuster of the bill. [there is a role call list for the vote at the last link]
not all of the problematic parts of the patriot act have sunset clauses expiring on december 31st 2005。 not all of the parts with relevant sunset clauses are problematic： some apparently increase the protections from intrusion。 as volokh [a fundie wing republican lawyer， who is fairly interesting and reasonable on non-fundie-agenda-related matters of law and civil rights] comments：
For those of us who think of the Patriot Act as actual legislation rather than a symbol of the Bush Administration, this is rather puzzling stuff. The dirty little secret about the Patriot Act is that only about 3% of the Act is controversial, and only about a third of that 3% is going to expire on December 31st. Further, much of the reauthorization actually puts new limits on a number of the controversial non-sunsetting provisions, and some of the sunsetting provisions increased privacy protections. As a result, it's not immediately obvious to me whether we'll have greater civil liberties on January 1, 2006 if the Patriot Act is reauthorized or if it is allowed to expire. (To be fair, though, I'd have to run through the effect of every expiring section and all of the reauthorization language to check this - maybe I would feel differently if I did.) a large part of the problems arising in these debates is caused by the inability to vote selectively。 the senators are presented with a mammoth collection of laws， the parts of which are often not even vaguely related to each other， some good， some bad， some indifferent， and every other shade between。 assuming the bill gets to a vote - the majority don't - the politicians must vote yes or no for the collection。
in the case of the patriot act， the bureaucrats ever attempt to add items from their wishlists， items that are invariably not good for liberty。 despite the constant invokation of "terrorism" on the right， the patriot act is in reality more aimed at the idiotic "war on drugs"。 despite the constant invokation of civil liberties on the left， the patriot act is mostly neutral on civil liberties： all of feingold's complaints are in the end related to government attempts to avoid oversight， rather than directly to the at least plausibly necessary created/extended exceptions to various rights。 on the moonbat left， the patriot act preforms rather as a useful， because the complaints at least sound reasonable or plausible， bush-bashing tool。
this system of non-specific voting has great advantages for a dishonest or corrupt politician。 it gives the weasels a strong degree of deniability： "i voted for that bill because of this orphanage for the children. of course, i don't like this billion dollar grant to my friends at corruption inc. to barcode and track every baby. however, in the end we must think of the children." or "of course i support the troops and i greatly regret being forced, by this part that would close one library in my district, to vote against this bill to fund buying body armour."
the politician can always claim away responsibility， because their vote is for a diverse package， rather than for a specific。 you see the same problem with the pork-busting attempts： you can't vote against someone's pork， because you will probably be voting against your own pork， or against something "important"， at the same time。 most of the pork bills are huge messy compromises， designed to make sure that nobody gets left out， all inserted into something that could be reasonably considered important。 thus all can and do claim that they weren't voting for the pork， but were actually voting for the important bits。 for example， the recent highways bill that has been the main focus of the porkbusters campaign has at its centre a core of work to modernise the american road infrastructure， something clearly important for the functioning of a modern industrial nation。 of course it also has the "bridge to nowhere"， an unwanted "parking garage" and much more。 it is reckoned that there is at least $24 billion 'worth' of pork in that one transportation bill。 it is a show。
there is an obvious and easy solution：
A single-subject, descriptive-title (hereinafter, SSDT) requirement for all Congressional bills — more popularly labeled a truth-in-legislation amendment as suggested by law professor Brannon Denning and attorney Brooks Smith (see their “Uneasy Riders: The Case for a Truth-in-Legislation Amendment,” 1999 Utah Law Review 858) — would only help cure some of the legislative abuses inflicted upon the populace by both chambers of Congress. The Denning/Smith version would read: "Congress shall pass no bill, and no bill shall become law, which embraces more than one subject, that subject being clearly expressed in the title." there are a few more honest politicians， such as coburn， who are very slowly improving the situation， despite the 'help' of their friends。 if you are determined enough， it is possible to force the corrupt or craven into the light：
In a 279-109 vote, the GOP-controlled House approved a resolution saying the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq" and that setting an "artificial timetable" would be "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory." [...]
It says that "setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq." [...]
By putting the resolution to a vote, Republican leaders forced Democrats to make a choice: either break ranks with their party and support the GOP resolution, or oppose it and open themselves to criticism, ahead of a congressional election year in which Iraq will be a focus, that they had rejected the notion of victory in Iraq. of course， the politicians will both do all they can to avoid being forced to make clear acts； and when so forced， politicians will do all they can after the fact to muddy the clarity of， or distract from， that act： just watch the democrats now quibbling over the definition of "victory" and bemoaning this "political stunt" as if it being political or a stunt has any relevance to their now recorded votes。
there is too much of both pessimism and optimistic credulity in discussion of the actions of politicians。 they are not invulnerable， things do slowly improve。 neither are they to be trusted， no matter how nice today's soundbite may appear。 another example： mccain has managed to build a considerable degree of credibility as a social moderate， who is willing to act against corruption and is hardheaded enough to face problems out there in the non-american world。 now watch carefully as he attempts to spend that capital and get the votes of the fundamentalists in his party：
McCain has also been tacking rightward in less obvious—or at least less aggressively publicized—ways. He has thrown his support behind the teaching of “intelligent design” along with evolution in public schools. He has endorsed a constitutional amendment in Arizona to ban gay marriage and deny benefits to unmarried couples of any kind. He has met privately with Jerry Falwell, in an apparent attempt to gin up a rapprochement with the Christian right, which he famously and vividly attacked at the height of the 2000 campaign. a politician's life is votes。 nothing more or less。 in order to gain the republican nomination this sort of pandering to idiocy is necessary， as mccain found when he failed to do so last time。 to get the democratic nomination， one must pander to a different breed of idiocy， but the political pattern is the same。
so now mccain does his pandering， opening himself wide open to hypocrisy charges， but giving himself a very good chance of getting the nomination。 he has to calculate whether gain in support from a large section of the sheep will be enough to compensate for the damage to his reputation in the eyes of the serious。 this is the reality of a politician's life。 just as the reality for those watching is never ever being certain just which parts are real and which parts are for the votes。 all we observers can be certain of is that mr.politician did say x， they did vote y and they did act z。。 at least assuming you trust your sources sufficiently for your purposes at this instant。
there are also some votes in at least appearing honest and there are some votes in acting "courageously"。 the more courageous politicians will at times act despite the feckless sheep， as blair did in britain vis the necessary action in iraq。。 but always the politician must calculate whether they can get away with it - ie whether they sheep will keep voting for them。。 and many (eg churchill) pay a heavy price for that courage when they miscalculate。
for sanity： do not despair； do not trust； study， make judgments and slowly improve the world。 there are many ways to improve the world， most are at least in some sense outside politics。
alternatively you can keep passively watching the show， fooling yourself that you understand or care。
or you can simply bury your head and hope it all "works out" somehow， which it probably will because they are many many good people willing to act where you are not。
it is your choice。。 although i would suggest that options two and three are no real options for any who wish to honestly claim to be a citizen or a man。
|
| |
08:29 am
|
porkbusters: coburn bringing the corrupt further into the light
coburn has brought a series of fiscal conservative ammendments before the us senate， almost all of them have been rejected。 the following was not：
The Senate did accept three Coburn amendments. One amendment required that all earmarks be included in the bill’s conference report. This amendment helps lift the veil of secrecy that conceals the process of inserting special projects into appropriations bills. Similar amendments have been attached to the Agriculture, Military Construction and Department of Defense Appropriations bills.
one more step in making it harder for the bastards to hide their corruption。
further， we now having the voting record as further evidence of preference for personal corruption over good government。
there are two expected candidates for the republican presidential nomination amongst those that stood up to the corruption： mccain and allen。 only one democrat voted with the good guys： feingold， who has a record of working with mccain on finance issues。 this cooperation includes the campaign reform bill that bears their names [which is having some ongoing unfortunate consequences - for example it has potential to be used to as a legal weapon to *try to* significantly reduce the free speech rights of bloggers， attempts that i can't see ever succeeding]。 there appears to be a possibility that feingold will run for his party's presidential nomination。。
amongst the ammendments rejected 15-82 in the senate was one to block funding to the alaskan "bridge to nowhere"：
The Coburn amendment would have blocked funding for a $223 million bridge to a town in Alaska with a population of 50 people. At $4.46 million per person, the cost of the bridge alone would be enough to buy every island resident their own personal Lear jet. The Coburn amendment also would have blocked funding for a $229 million bridge that would connect Anchorage, Alaska to hundreds of square miles of unpopulated wetlands.
obviously i would have prefered that coburn's ammendments were passed。 however， this is no defeat for the anti-corruption campaigners： the ammendment passed (see above) and the voting record that will be publisised mercilessly just further expose the pork-pushers for what they are： highly corrupt men， now on the run。 the principle that applies to bigots， applies just as well to the corrupt：
How it infuriates a bigot when he is forced to drag out his dark convictions. --logan pearson smith.
Pork is the poster child for government bloat, and it needs to highlighted, project by project, by project, and the politicians who push it should be made to defend each project again and again.
everyday more people internalise these ideas。 we do not need to win everything overnight， we just need to keep on steadily improving small step by small step。 in the end， there is nothing these politicians can do about it if people are determined。 as coburn himself put it in a recent interview：
when the American people want things to change, they will change.
is coburn running for the nomination also？ the more serious candidates the better。。
already individual americans are responding to their senator's actions：
Just after I read your blog on the Coburn Amendments' failure, I received a phone call - AT MY OFFICE (a church) - from the Republican National Committee thanking me for my past support and asking for more money for some critical election in Florida.
I interrupted them and said "You won't get one thin dime from me, until you do something about the pork. I called my Republican Senator's (Coleman) office a couple weeks ago to talk about Pork - but barely received a response. Now they rejected the Coburn amendment. Where is the fiscally responsible Republican party I helped to elect? You won't get any more money from me until it changes."
politicians survive on their campaign funds， which are more and more provided for by small donations from very large numbers of people - yet another consequence of the mccain-feingold campaign finance reform， the growing power that the internet gives to individuals and the vastly expanding personal wealth。 where do you think this increasingly important funding will be directed and not directed？
politicians are not invunerable， they keep their jobs on sufferance。 individuals hold vastly greater power than most realise， especially where they focus and cooperate。 gradually that realisation is spreading； in step the power of those "in charge" reduces。 this is a positive feedback loop： the more people see how ineffectual the "in charge" power is， the more who are emboldened to further erode that flimsy power。
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: Jimmy Ruffin - What Becomes Of The Brokenhearted
|
| |
10:58 am
|
republican party leadership starting to back down on fiscal irresponsibility
over the last few weeks， hundreds of constituents having been writing to their congressmen asking what those congressmen are going to do reduce excessive federal government spending。 despite the litany of unhelpful， unresponsive and downright negative responses that i've seen published on various blogs， the reality is that the porkbusters campaign is having a real and positive effect。
first we have a group of 100+ republican fiscal conservative sentators working together to pressure their highly corrupt leadership：
The more than 100 conservatives in the Republican Study Committee in the House have documented $500 billion that could be saved over the coming decade.
And Sen. John McCain and other Republican senators want $85 billion saved by delaying for two years the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.
note that despite mccain's very positive leadership on this issue， his 'savings' mentioned above are disingenuous： his proposal is more a matter of delaying the spending until the storm has (hopefully) blown over。
。。 then we have initial results：
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert is an old wrestler, and last Thursday night he used a classic move of his sport by quickly reversing positions. On behalf of the Republican leadership, Hastert went before his colleagues to embrace essentially the same package of spending that two weeks earlier he had scourged conservative House members for proposing. The change was a matter of necessity rather than choice. [...]
It was about what Pence and his colleagues proposed two weeks earlier. What's more, Hastert is pushing the first mid-session amendment of the budget in 28 years.
The entire Republican leadership endorsed the Hastert plan, but the conference was far from unanimous.
this is not expected to be the end of the consessions that will be forced from the free-spending republican 'leadership'：
On the floor of the House Friday, Pence issued a polite victory statement. "Some of us thought we should pay for the big cost of Hurricane Katrina by cutting big government," he said, adding that "we're beginning to do just that." However, speaking "on behalf of House conservatives," he said, "we are pleased but not content, we are encouraged but not satisfied" because the actual cutting will be harder than winning the debate. Pence sounded a little like Ronald Reagan's "trust but verify" reaction to Mikhail Gorbachev.
note that hastert is the replacement for tom delay， the man whose idiotic statement started this whole campaign：
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.
delay was kicked out for financial corruption in his home state of texas and has stated he that his constituency doesn't have any pork to cut， but even he is now at least trying to pretend to be a fiscal conservative。
the good guys are winning， all that is needed is that the pressure continues：
Pork is the poster child for government bloat, and it needs to highlighted, project by project, by project, and the politicians who push it should be made to defend each project again and again.
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: [none]
|
| |
09:18 am
|
proposed new presidential powers to force specific votes on pork
i can't see how this helps with the current president， but nor can i disagree with the principle：
Rep. Mark Udall has joined Republican budget hawks on legislation that would give the White House new authority to pare congressional spending bills. [...]
It would authorize the president to pull specific items out of massive appropriations bills and then force Congress to hold up-or-down votes on the proposed cuts. It would apply to fiscal year 2006 spending bills, plus the huge, multiyear transportation plan that critics have said is loaded with wasteful, pork barrel projects.
i'd be happier still if up-down votes were mandatory on each clause of each bill： it'd not only slow them down (always a good thing where government is concerned)， but would also make supporting pork far harder to hide。
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: Bonnie Tyler - Total Eclipse Of The Heart
|
| |
03:25 pm
|
fiscal conservatives block $8 billion rush pork bill
leaders on both side are "outraged"， meanwhile mccain and co's power continues to grow：
The Senate was up to its old tricks Monday evening. It prepared to pass, without debate and under a procedure requiring unanimous consent, a federal infusion of $9 billion into state Medicaid programs under the pretext of Katrina relief. The bill, drafted in secret under bipartisan auspices, was stopped cold when Republican Sen. John Ensign voiced his objection.
The bill's Democratic sponsors railed in outrage against Ensign, a 47-year-old first-termer from Las Vegas, Nev., who usually keeps a low profile. But he was not acting alone. Ensign belongs to, and, indeed, originated, a small group of Republicans who intend to stand guard on the Senate floor against such raids on the Treasury as Monday's failure. The group includes Sen. John McCain, who long has tried to wean Republicans from ever greater federal spending but attracted little support from GOP colleagues until recently.
Fear has enveloped Republicans who see themselves handing the banner of fiscal integrity to the Democrats. The GOP is losing the rhetoric war, even though Democrats mostly push for higher domestic spending, because Republicans, while standing firm against tax increases, have also declined to cut spending. Fearing the worst in the 2006 and 2008 elections, Republican senators who would not be expected to do so are looking to McCain to lead the party back to fiscal responsibility.
there is suggestion that， even if the republican party is stupid enough to once more block mccain from the nomination， a perot-esk independent campaign has a strong change of landing mccain in the white house。 at the current rate of decentralisation of media and political power， and with three more years until the election， i think the possibility of an independent mccain presidency is far from implausible。
people are also suggesting similar for guiliani， but he seems， as with perot， too lightweight and so likely would just repeat perot's failure。
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: The Eagles - Desperado
|
| 02:56 pm
|
kick pork supporting congressmen where it hurts
Not One Dime More targeted the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the failure of GOP leadership to get George Bush's judicial nominees confirmed or even in process. Now we want to target both parties' Congressional election commitees, the NRCC and the DCCC, by withholding funds while the parties act to protect their pork. For those representatives who refuse to pare the pork, we need to cut off their political oxygen until they turn blue and their campaign chests grow cold. Tell your Congressperson that while they protect the pork we discover, while they continue to vote for budgets with these useless and wasteful projects when the funding could defray the hurricane relief efforts, we will send Not One Dime to their efforts to re-elect their incumbents.
of course most campaign money likely comes from those very few that benefit from the pork， so this campaign probably won't get great support。。 however， modern campaigns are more and more run on the basis of getting very small donations from a very large number of people， rather than a few big donors pulling most of the weight。 that change will make congressmen more and more vunerable to this sort of campaign。
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: Mesh - You Didn't Want Me
|
| |
02:49 pm
|
delay breaks 11th commandment, steps down
tom delay is now out of the game：
A Texas grand jury indicted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) yesterday on a charge of criminally conspiring with two political associates to inject illegal corporate contributions into 2002 state elections that helped the Republican Party reorder the congressional map in Texas and cement its control of the House in Washington. The indictment forced DeLay, one of the Republicans' most powerful leaders and fundraisers, to step aside under House rules barring such posts to those accused of criminal conduct [...]
the indictment, which comes after three rebukes of DeLay in 2004 by the House ethics committee on unrelated matters, poses a major political problem for the 58-year-old Bush administration loyalist, 11-term congressman, and self-described champion of free enterprise and deregulation. DeLay is also likely to face an inquiry by the ethics committee into a series of foreign trips he took that were initially partly paid for by lobbyists.
i can't say i grieve any。
there are possible indications that the "porkbusters" are using the opportunity to further flex their muscles：
. House Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the third-ranking leader, was elected by Republican House members yesterday afternoon to fill the spot temporarily after conservatives threatened a revolt against another candidate considered by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).
although my guess is that "conservatives" refers to fiscal conservatives， it could be some other set， like for example the christianist fundie "conservatives"。
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: Cat Stevens - Father And Son
|
| |
01:41 pm
|
republican 'leaders' forced to follow
Republican leaders are taking pains to demonstrate a growing commitment to fiscal restraint one week after a contentious standoff with House conservatives over federal offsets to pay for recovery efforts in the hurricane-beleaguered Gulf Coast region. [...]
The conference meeting tomorrow is unusual because House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) usually starts off the weekly meeting, followed by Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Pryce and a committee chairman with legislation pending. Those opening remarks often consume 20 to 30 minutes before other members are allowed to address the conference.
During this week’s meeting, rank-and-file members are scheduled to have an open 30 minutes of discussion before leadership takes over.
it looks likely that the fiscal conservatives have made at least one solid gain：
Congress must pass a continuing resolution, known as a CR, this week because lawmakers have finished only two of the dozen separate spending bills for fiscal year 2006. The CR will fund the government until the other appropriations bills are passed.
Unlike most years, GOP House and Senate leaders will offer a continuing resolution that temporarily funds the government at the lowest of three possible levels: the current fiscal 2005 level, or the level passed in either the House or the Senate appropriations bills this year, according to knowledgeable GOP aides.
the 'leadership' is yet again being bypassed and yet again complaining bitterly。 more please。
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: The Beautiful South - Something That You Said
|
| |
02:56 pm
|
us state government incomes rising
state governments across america are getting richer at a hell of a rate。 these incomes are entirely separate from the federal government。 state governments get additional subsidies from the federal government to top up their pork funds。 of course all this funding， whether state or federal， comes via the forced largesse of the taxpayers： they are fleeced down twice， once by the state protection racket and once by the federal protection racket [they are also often taxed at even more local levels]。
when you hear about something in the us getting federal funding， it is wise to wonder just why it has anything to do with the federal government： sanely the federals' job is just to manage any cooperative efforts between the states， efforts which are funded and carried out at the state level。 sanely federal taxation levels would be miniscule in comparison to state taxation levels。 of course just the opposite is the case。
across the country， state governments raked in near $500 billion off their own bat in 2004； that number is expected to grow to over $550 billion for 2005 [13.1% growth]。 the federal government raked in more like $1.8 trillion in 2004 and is estimating $2.05 trillion for 2005 [9.2% growth]。 clearly there is something amiss。 the current setup allows maximal central control with minimal accountability， which is of course no accident。
the greatest rate of growth in state government income was in alaska at 42.9% [~$1.2 billion in 2004， ~$1.7 billion estimate for 2005]。 the alaskan state government also happens to receive the highest per capita income from the federal government： the state government receives from the federal government some 1.8 times [~$8 billion in 2003] what their hapless populace are forced to pay。 this is the same alaska whose pork don has precurred an addition $200 million to build a bridge for 50 people to use instead of the oh-so-inconvenient twice hourly ferry。
the louisiana state government saw a 10.7% income increase [~$6.1 billion in 2004， ~$6.9 billion estimate for 2005]， but apparently still need an extra $60 billion for palm-greasing。
you will i hope notice that i am carefully referring to these incomes as *government* incomes， rather than incomes to the particular states： these incomes are of course drained from the productivity and wealth of the states and their inhabitants to feed the government parasites。 the governments in question may or may not use some of that income 'for' 'their' people - naturally what the individual taxpayers want and what the government decide the taxpayers 'want' are unlikely to be the same - after taking their cut that is。 state government incomes are not incomes to the states， or populaces， in question， unless one were to consider a small recovered proportion of the monies stolen by a mugger as income。
the numbers above， especially the ~$550 billion state government total income and the ~$2050 billion federal government total income， should give you some idea both just how much corruption and pork is possible/likely and of how petty some of the savings being suggested are in comparison。 for further comparison， the us as a whole will pay the equivalent of ~$11,000 billion in salaries， or equivalents， in 2005。
dealing with government corruption is no small or simple task， and much as i am encouraged by the "porkbusters" campaigns， i doubt they will make a big dent in that two and half trillion dollars 'worth' of parasite。 i will be happy to be proved wrong， and will keep working towards such a happy day。
you can get *lots* more interesting data on federal government income here。
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: YUKI - サイダー
|
| 09:15 am
|
rebuilding new orleans, just another excuse for corruption and stupidity
as widely predicted， the absurdly large aid package (currently $60 billion， now expected to rise to $250 billion) is being taken as yet another excuse for corruption and backhanders：
Louisiana's congressional delegation has requested $40 billion for Army Corps of Engineers projects in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, about 10 times the annual Corps budget for the entire nation, or 16 times the amount the Corps has said it would need to protect New Orleans from a Category 5 hurricane.
an instapundit reader has suggested that there could be advantages to allowing this particular bit of corruption：
The rule in Louisiana has generally been that twenty percent goes to the relevant officials. In the case of a big project, that means that after the Congressional delegation, the State people, and all the city/parish locals, what's left is 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 = a little over half for the actual work.
Contractors then take over, and you have, e.g., four loads of fill dirt delivered but pay for five.
Let's give them most or even all of it, but with a proviso that they have to put up a Web site on which /every penny/ is accounted for, down to front-and-back scans of every invoice paid. There's bound to be one or two public-spirited anal retentives detail-minded folk willing to go over it. The result would either be enough indictments to clean-sweep the whole bunch, or a New New Orleans twenty meters above sea level, made entirely of gold-plated titanium, and covered with a dome for full-city air conditioning. Either one would be fun to have, no?
just how corrupt is louisiana？
Louisiana ranks third in the nation in the number of elected officials per capita convicted of crimes (Mississippi takes top prize). In just the past generation, the Pelican State has had a governor, an attorney general, three successive insurance commissioners, a congressman, a federal judge, a state Senate president and a swarm of local officials convicted.
meanwhile confederate yankee has put out a scientific case for why new orleans should not be rebuilt at all。 it boils down to：
There is nothing at all sensible about rebuilding New Orleans. It will be on, or under, the Gulf of Mexico by 2050
he has maps and a clarification from a geologist。
so far i've been unable to find a national poll on the question "should we rebuild new orleans？"， which i find somewhat odd。 there have been various unscientific online polls， but nothing that can be taken seriously。 are they worried what response they will get？！
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: YUKI - ティンカーベル
|
| 08:46 am
|
delay converts to fiscal conservativism, sort of
a monumentally stupid utterance by tom delay started the current grassroots campaign to reform congress， with particular emphasis on stopping the tide of congressional corruption known as pork。 his statement：
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.
after just a few days of pressure from the anti-corruption campaigners， he effectively retracted that statement：
There are programs all over the federal budget that are bloated or wasteful or inefficiently using the funds we provide them, and I'm very interested in identifying them.
now he has gone further， putting himself firmly on the side of the anti-corruption campaigners：
The current political dialogue on political spending is one that requires a clear declaration of principles from House Republicans. We will continue to display an earnest devotion to the ideals of a smaller, more efficient, better-prioritized government. Flaunting rhetoric on the issue of fiscal discipline will not be enough. The conservative ideals of fiscal discipline and leaner, smarter government require a legislative agenda that can be put into action and enacted into law.
That action begins with the House Republican commitment to breaking the government bureaucracy's logjam of inefficient programs and wasteful spending. This goal will be accomplished by advancing a budget initiative that pulls up from the roots billions of dollars of wasteful spending programs that have taken hold in the federal budget for far too long.
We need to drag this woodpile of wasteful spending that is buried in the federal budget out into the light and throw it onto the scrap heap.
he is certainly flaunting much more agreeable rhetoric than before。 as a wise man once said， "there is more joy in heaven over the one sheep that returns to the fold than a thousand who never strayed"， or something like that。 as another wise man once said， "trust actions， not words"。 your move mr.delay： is this just flaunted rhetoric， or are you going to act？
the rest of his statement makes amusing reading， with lots of "that's what i've been saying all along" and "it's all the democrats fault dontchaknow" and "we're being fiscal conservatives already, you just didn't notice"：
Having compiled a long record as a conscientious fiscal conservative in the House of Representatives, it is clear that the recent political discussion focusing on the government's spending priorities and overall economic platform in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita has introduced a valuable forum to promote the triumph of our ideas and solutions for government over the crumbling and outdated policies of the Democrat-controlled Congresses of past decades. [...]
While tailoring our focus on the task at hand, our party must also trumpet our accomplishments. So far this year, the House-passed appropriations bills have cut 98 low-priority programs, for a savings of $4 billion and the first real cut in domestic spending since 1987.
of course both reagan and bush junior have appalling records of corporate socialism funded at the expense of skyrocketing debts， while clinton largely ran a economically tight ship。 yeah， sure it's all the fault of those nasty minority democrats， you really peally are on the taxpayers side。 i do believe you， honest i do。
。。you could always prove my scepticism wrong， i won't mind。
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: YUKI - ＡＩＲ ＷＡＶＥ
|
| |
02:12 pm
|
cutting the pork: try it yourself
continuing the pork cutting theme， chicagoboyz has done a fantasy budget using an interesting budget simulator。 he's ended up with a $347.47 billion surplus， as opposed to the current ~$400 billion deficit。
most of his cutting seems pretty reasonable to me， if not political correct。 he does however seem infected with market fundamentalism - let the market run free and it will solve everything - but most of that can be fixed by adding judicious legislation to his proposed cuts。
an example： he wants to eliminate government subsidies to the energy industry。 i'm all for that， but it would not magically solve the significant problems。 law setting sane incentives is also needed， for example forcing the fossil fuel industry to pay for its currently externalised costs， forcing the prominent display of proper energy efficiency data on energy products and serious protection for the nuclear industry from politically motived delaying 'legal' attacks。
he also suggests getting the feds out of paying for education， leaving it to the states and the vastly more efficient private sector。 i'm hardly going to disagree， but doing such a thing overnight would be highly disruptive， and so counting such a cut in the savings total is not entirely reasonable。
he also suggests halving the federal space program budget， with the following sensible comments：
What's needed are property rights and massive deregulation so that the private sector can get the ball rolling. Then when craft are ready, a police presence in space using cheaper, more mature craft than we have now will help entice more private sector activity up there. Everything left in this line item should be redirected to prizes and, eventually, purchase orders of cheap, mass-produced vehicles.
i can but agree， although i'd be inclined towards a greater cut than 50% (maybe 90%？)： government should be in the business of legislation and incentives， rather than direct building。 the private sector is far more efficient once directed sanely and private enterprise affords less (not no) opportunity for corruption of public officials。 cf. previous comment on the amazingly successful first steps of the private space industry：
it should be noted that the whole development, construction, testing, staff etc. for spaceshipone has so far has not finished using the original 20 million dollars stumped up by paul allen. a single space shuttle flight costs between 400 and 600 million dollars. spaceshipone is, apart from fuel, fully reusable. the space shuttle needs considerable refit after each flight - between 10 and 20 percent from estimates i've seen. [...]
as rutan pointed out in the press conference afterwards, spaceshipone is the first winged vehicle into space. this apparently has huge safety advantages over the likes of the space shuttle when it comes to reentry, making heat shielding less of an issue
another major possible saving， not catered for by the budget simulator， is a flat tax。 complex tax law not only diverts private enterprise from productive activity into dishonest wealth destruction， it is also a prime opportunity for the government parasites：
And in case you think that describing Mr Brown's tax collectors as an army is overdoing it, a report by the Treasury select committee last year said there were 99,400 of them, only a couple of thousand less than the strength of the Army and much more than both the RAF and the Royal Navy.
as abelard comments：
this, of course, does not mention the hordes in companies struggling to keep up with the idiocy and the parasites in legal and accountancy living off the mess...
the deliberately complex tax systems of the west are *designed* for maximal parasitism， not efficiency or the benefit of those being fleeced of their hard earned。 it should also be noted that the british and american tax collectors are literally beyond the law。 this is not just a poverty/productivity issue， it is also a freedom issue。
currently five us states have a flat tax (illinois， indiana， massachusetts， michigan and pennsylvania)。 pennsylvania， unlike almost all flat tax jurisdictions， does not have a 0% rate set for its poorest， something i regards as foolish and inhumane。 outside the us， there are at least ten countries with flat tax， almost all in former communist eastern europe。
yet another major area of corruption open to reform is the drug 'law' and its associated parasitism and illegitimate attacks on liberty。 all drugs should be legalised and regulated as most are now。
So, the ‘drug ’war’ is used to ‘justify’ more policemen and more civil oppression. It develops more corruption, more lawyers, more sales to replace stolen goods, more insurance premiums from frightened householders, more sales for padlocks, as well as making ‘necessary’ a good part of the security industry. [...]
It is reckoned that the majority of people in British and American prisons are there because of their drug habits and associated criminalised behaviour. The British prison population per capita is considerably higher than the great majority of European countries, and the American prison population per capita is at least five times higher than that of Britain, and is now [04.2003] reported to number over 2 million.
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: 君と今日の事を一生忘れない
|
| 01:08 pm
|
honour amongst thieves? pork recipients 'consider' giving it back
the amounts are tiny and the action hasn't yet been taken， but this is a significant step in unplugging the dam：
Monday night, the city of Bozeman, Mont., may do something unheard of. Congress earmarked $4 million in federal funds to build Bozeman a parking garage. Now the city commission will consider a proposal to give the money back, citing the financial needs of areas along the Gulf Coast.
all the campaigners need do is keep up the pressure：
Pork is the poster child for government bloat, and it needs to highlighted, project by project, by project, and the politicians who push it should be made to defend each project again and again.
just as with bigots， the corrupt can not stand daylight if provided in sufficient quantity：
How it infuriates a bigot when he is forced to drag out his dark convictions. --logan pearson smith.
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: 紫禁城
|
| |
09:47 am
|
pork incorporated: alaska's don young
alaska's pork don (young) is coming under more and more directed fire。 however， he so far seems to think the "deny everything" trick will work for him：
REPORTER: Isn’t there a bunch of stuff in that highway bill, at least 24 billion dollars, that could be taken out and used for the people in New Orleans and Mississippi and the places that were affected?
REP. YOUNG: No! That money is not there! That money is for transportation! That is not added pork. See, that’s why the whole media — Wall Street Journal, yourself, respectfully, you know, Sam Donaldson — don’t know what the hell you are talking about. This is grandstanding by individuals that don’t know what they’re talking about. I’ll go back to that. It’s ignorance and stupidity.
the main project he is attempting to protect is a $200 million "bridge to nowhere" that would serve an island with 50 residents， who already have a ferry every half hour。
if i were working at republican party headquarters， i'd be pushing the alaskan branch to drop him from the party。 he is a clear liability。 a liability that can but grow as this attitude inevitably spreads：
Pork is the poster child for government bloat, and it needs to highlighted, project by project, by project, and the politicians who push it should be made to defend each project again and again.
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: 女子十二楽坊 - 楼蘭少女
|
| |
09:41 am
|
mccain looking more and more like a serious candidate
once again， mccain appears to be doing the right thing：
Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, and five other conservative GOPers today announced a package of savings options to help pay for hurricane recovery efforts, including delaying the prescription drug benefit and rescinding $24 billion worth of pork in the recently approved transporation bill.
They also claim holding spending to 3.4 percent annually - the rate during the last five years of the Clinton administration - would save $381 billion over five years. Under Bush, the annual spending increase has average nearly 8 percent.
notice that he is not talking peanut numbers， unlike the $70 million offered by pelosi。 now to see if he can once again outmanoeuver the party leadership， as he did over the filibusters。 this time bush， delay and co are forewarned， but will that be enough for them to keep their corrupt practices？
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: [none]
|
| 09:18 am
|
the congressional reform debate gathers steam
after less than a week， the real media now has the fossil media helping， a senator adding them to their email circulation， one of most moonbat of democrats leading the way to reform by example， the republican grassroots bypassing the corruption nexus of bush/delay， and serious discussion about the future direction of conservative politics：
But the real debate isn't happening in Congress as a whole - it is unfolding within the Republican Party. The debate will shape the future of the GOP. If Republicans - the one-time party of small government and fiscal restraint -- cannot support spending cuts now, then they will officially signal their abandonment of fiscal conservatism, a once valued part of the Republican platform. [...]
White House aides have sent clear signals to Congress that any such legislation will be met with vigorous opposition from the Bush administration as well as House and Senate leadership. In fact, were such legislation to pass, it could draw President Bush's first veto -- a threat viewed with disdain by many fiscal conservatives, but taken seriously nonetheless.
For his part, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has said repeal of the drug benefit was a "non-starter." DeLay drew criticism from conservatives last week when he declared an "ongoing victory" over wasteful government spending. [...]
House conservatives opposed to government running up the credit card with no plans to pay it off, are launching "Operation Offset." [...] The document points out some of the most egregious examples of the 6,000 plus earmarks contained in the roads bill, including "$200 million for the "bridge to nowhere," a bridge in Alaska that would serve an island with 50 residents [...]
Bloggers, too have latched onto this theme. A coalition of bloggers have launched a website called "porkbusters." The site lists every member of the House and Senate by the name and has a column next to the name for "committed cuts," or sacrifices. Currently, the only member of Congress listed with a "committed cut" is House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
Many Republican members of Congress must be asking themselves, "Is Nancy Pelosi the best fiscal conservative this Congress has to offer?"
for more on this subject see here。 this is a *real* opportunity for the angry left to go after bush， unlike their usual moon-battery。 of course it would mean dropping their own corrupt socialist tendencies。。
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: [none]
|
| |
09:26 am
|
private emergency response trumps government inefficiency
with government emergency responses to hurricane katrina the subject of mockery， a private company (walmart) has quietly put them to shame：
If you mention the Red Cross or FEMA to people in Slidell, you hear rants about help that didn't arrive and phone lines that are always busy. If you mention state or national politicians, you hear obscenities.
But if you visit the Wal-Mart and the Sam's Club stores here, you hear shoppers who have been without power for weeks marveling that there are still generators in stock (and priced at $304.04). You hear about the trucks that rolled in right after the hurricane and the stuff the stores gave away: chain saws and boots for rescue workers, sheets and clothes for shelters, water and ice for the public.
"This was the only place we could find water those first days," said Rashan Smith, who was shopping with her three children at Wal-Mart on Saturday. "I still haven't managed to get through to FEMA. It's hard to say, but you get more justice at Wal-Mart."
That's the same assessment you hear from public officials in Louisiana, and there's even been talk of letting Wal-Mart take over FEMA's job. The company already has its own emergency operations center, where dozens of people began preparing for the hurricane the week before it hit by moving supplies and trucks into position.
yet more government inefficiency， corruption and destruction of wealth。 i propose a competitive bids program for providing strictly defined levels of emergency services。 such contracts should have clauses requiring repayment of triple the original contract value on failure to deliver the contracted service。 yet more pork cut， and better service to boot。
as keynes once said：
The important thing for Government is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at all.
it is time to remove government from the delivery of emergency services。
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: Terry Jacks - Seasons In The Sun
|
| 09:09 am
|
pork update: congressional positions
instapundit is doing a useful service in documenting the positions of senators and representatives vis their willingness to forgo pork in order to fund post-katrina reconstruction。
a number of congressmen have agreed to small loses of pork in their own districts。 others have taken the "no way hose" position。 my current favourite for the next president， john mccain， has found between 300 billion and 700 billion in the federal budget that he says he's willing to cut。 it is not in his district， however：
"'We’ve got to go back and look at the Medicare prescription drug bill. It was supposed to cost $400 billion. It’s now up to $700 billion.' McCain added, 'It was a bad idea to start with.'"
for more on the growing grassroots campaign for congressional anti-corruption reform， see here。
note that bill for post-katrina reconstruction has currently grown to $200 billion。 it is a certainty that a large part of that ridiculous sum is just more corruption。 trust 'them' at your peril。
i think it is a mistake on the part of the campaigners to be talking of this in terms of a one off trade， pork for reconstruction aid。 that stance seems designed to result in a return to business as usual even if they are successful in their aims。 all corruption is a reduction in the community's productivity， and thus makes the community poorer。 it is not simply a redistribution of wealth from poor to rich， although it does also have that effect。 pork causes poverty as surely as socialism does。
there is a current opportunity for serious reform。 will the american people rise to the challenge as they have done so many times before？
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: Joe Walsh - Life's Been Good
|
|
[<< Previous 20 entries] |
