RNC 2008: McCain Speech

[Dinner]

The reality is ear marks are only about $18 billion this year which in a $3.2 trillion isn't a huge problem. No one is going to balance the budget with this.

[Dinner]

I thought I'd share this take on McCain's speech.

[Lancer]

Oerdin, that's interesting, but...meaningless. When Palin said that she would be an advocate in Washington for special needs children that was it. Over. The ladies will flock to her banner.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Though I can definitely see the abuse. Say there are protections put into a bill... for example, wiretapping. The President just just strike those protections out and pass a far more powerful bill.

Not if the mechanisms I suggested were in place. Perhaps that doesn't fit the definition of LIV though?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok


I don't even pretend to understand the power dynamics involved or how seriously it would affect them, but I don't see how a LIV could be too badly abused, assuming the system were set up properly. Either the veto is overridden and the bill passes as is or they bite the bullet, cut the stuff the President objects to and it passes with revisions. All it does is allow an extra compromising mechanism in the system. It only reduces congressional power insofar as they can no longer pull the old "Ha ha, we stuffed the budget with bull**** pork but if you veto it we'll blame you for putting the government in a stall" trick. Well, not as effectively, anyway.

Well, would Congress have to overturn each veto, or the veto's in a bill all at once?

More importantly, CONGRESS has power of the purse, not the President, the consitution is rather clear on that. So why the hell should the President get to chose little bits of spending he approves or disapproves off if Congress as a body already decided on them and sent them as a single package? Lets not forget people that in the end, members of Congress, not the President, are our represenatives in Washington that we have the most control over (being the only ones trully directly elected by the people).

And as for earmarks, the reason they never go away can be seen by why people like Sarah Palin worked with her Congressional representatives to get them while she was in local office - because it gives communities a chance to build stuff that they by themselves could not afford. Everyone can claim to hate pork, but everyone loves to get pork, and Congresspeople who get pork to their home districts benefit from it electorally. If voters really hated Porkbarel spending, they could vote out their own representatives who got pork for the district. How many people here think that is going to happen??

[PLATO]

My pork...Good!

Your pork...Bad!

[Lancer]

Originally posted by PLATO
My pork...Good!

Your pork...Bad!

That's why I like this particular Repug ticket. I think...hope...that they'll shoot it no matter whose pig it is.

[GePap]

Earmark spending constituted about .5% of the Federal Budget last year, or about 2% of the discretionary budget.

Given how vast the Federal budget is, it is a lot of money, but I think it needs to be given the attention it merits, given its relative size to all the other ways the government spends, or fails to spend, money.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think that earmarks aren't necessarily disliked for the amount spent on them (though I'm sure plenty think its like 50% of the budget or some BS), but for what they say about Washington pols... ie, willing to bribe or take bribes.

[GePap]

Then let the people show that dislike when they vote for members of Congress.

This "issue" is what one gets with an uninterested body politic. That is a bigger problem than any, and the biggest denounciation of the American system. Democracy is not a lazy person's government. If people don't want to have to think about issues of governance, they need to hand over political power to an authoritarian ruler. Otherwise, they need to keep in touch and know what the **** is going on.

[Kuciwalker]

More importantly, CONGRESS has power of the purse, not the President, the consitution is rather clear on that. So why the hell should the President get to chose little bits of spending he approves or disapproves off if Congress as a body already decided on them and sent them as a single package?

Because Congress has long demonstrated that it's not responsible enough with that power, and many, many states have shown that the line item veto works.

[Ramo]

Earmarks are a tiny portion of the federal budget. And since a lot of important and/or politically untouchable projects are funded by earmarks (upkeep for federal courts, aid to Israel, etc.), they're even less significant. Given that the the balance of power is already tipped too far in favor of the President (see anything related to national security), I don't think Congress ought to be giving up any more. Line item vetoes

[Elok]

So take away the Patriot Act BS and substitute a limited LIV. I don't think anyone's going to balance the budget; at this point, nothing but a substantial tax hike or an incredible boost in the economy will do that. But we might as well kill the little stuff since the big stuff apparently has us cornered.

[Kuciwalker]

Moreover, killing the little stuff prevents congressmen from using federal allocations to supplement their PR budget.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I thought I'd share this take on McCain's speech.

The "Reformed Maverick" intro film was much better:





Ian McShane