Free Markets, Free People


Good news–GOP to “upend” spending process

One bit of advice I’ve been consistently throwing out there for the incoming GOP House majority is to act on those things that lead to less spending and smaller less costly government.  If they sit back and complain that even if they pass these things the Senate will vote it down or, if by chance, it gets past the Senate, President Obama will veto it, they’re gone in 2012.

So I was rather pleased to see that they intend to do exactly that in a POLITICO article today:

On some level, their plans may create a sense of organized chaos on the House floor — picture dozens of votes on dozens of federal program cuts and likely gridlock on spending bills. And don’t forget that a lot of these efforts will die with a Democratic-led Senate and a Democrat in the White House.

But the intent is to force debate as much as to actually legislate — and make Old Guard Republicans and Democrats uncomfortable with a new way of thinking about the size and scope of government.

For every action, however, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  And, per POLITICO, that opposite reaction is going to come from the “Old Guard” Republicans and Democrats who feel they’ve earned their power via seniority and don’t want to see it threatened or disrupted.

Insiders who have made a living under the old system are sure to push back, and many fear that Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) may not understand what he is doing.

“John should talk with the professional appropriators about the complexities, rather than talk off the top of his head. His plans would take a huge amount of the House’s time, but what would it accomplish?” said a dubious former House Republican member of the Appropriations Committee who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A former Democratic appropriator also was skeptical about describing prospective changes at that committee, which has a strong tradition of producing 12 bills every year from 12 subcommittees run by 12 very powerful Appropriations “cardinals.”

“On the practical side, it has to be nuts. Given the difficulty in passing the current bills, adding these changes would be a dream world. … There could be a revolt by members, who will want to get home and campaign.”

What is Boehner’s heresy? 

The plans include slicing and dicing appropriations bills into dozens of smaller, bite-size pieces — making it easier to kill or slash unpopular agencies. Other proposals include statutory spending caps, weekly votes on spending cuts and other reforms to ensure spending bills aren’t sneakily passed under special rules.

Yup … real change comes hard.  The “cardinals” want their power to be undiminished.  There’s a shock.  So let’s attempt to answer the question of the “dubious former House Republican member of the Appropriations Committee” shall we?

What would it accomplish?

Well, let’s see – one, if it took more time, it would be more time spent on bringing sanity to the appropriations process – a vital job of the House – and less time celebrating such things as the Smackover Arkansas junior league squash team’s championship or recognizing National Skunk Ranchers day.

Secondly, it would take a serious look at the appropriations process in detail.  Understandable, “bite-size pieces” that one can wrap their head around and vote down if the spending can’t be justified vs. huge omnibus bills so large and complex that it is difficult for anyone to understand what they’re voting for.

Third, as the paragraph states, doing it that way would “ensure spending bills aren’t sneakily passed under special rules.”  Or said another way – actual debate would be encouraged, not avoided.

And frankly, I like this idea as well – for the “detailed look” and context it would bring to the process:

Perhaps the most dramatic change is Boehner’s planned Appropriations Committee overhaul to require funding on a department-by-department basis, first reported by POLITICO on Wednesday. His proposal would subdivide the dozen current appropriations bills so that funding for each major federal agency would require a separate House vote.

Size and complexity are the enemy of good legislation and certainly sane appropriations.

“The [suggested] changes may be easier to follow and make more sense” than the existing practices, said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. “As long as members can make a case for or against a particular program, they will have the basis for objective decisions.”

Precisely. And an objective process in which to identify and eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, parts of agencies (redundant) or entire agencies (unproductive bureaucracies)if the case could be made (and it can – the question is whether it will). But this sort of process at least is a step in the right direction of bringing fiscal sanity back to the appropriations process if it can be introduced and followed.

Of course we’re talking politics and vested interests here so you never know.  And, of course, the GOP members must “buy into” the new process to make it work.  That, of course is a leadership problem, and it will be among Boehner’s first tests if he and his leadership group truly hope to change the way the House does business and enact measures that will indeed reduce spending and dial back government’s size and cost.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

7 Responses to Good news–GOP to “upend” spending process

  • Day-yam…
    Somebody is showing some brains and balls!!!  I TOTALLY agree with these initiatives in principle.
    Go, John…!!!

    • The signs of a crack-up are everywhere. Democrats still think they can somehow win a news cycle by demonizing John Boehner.

      John Boehner is the perfect “man in black” …

      Early reports of Men in Black often described them as men of short stature with swarthy complexions, as if they were deeply tanned.

  • “John should talk with the professional appropriators about the complexities, rather than talk off the top of his head. His plans would take a huge amount of the House’s time, but what would it accomplish?””

    Right, Mr, Anonymous, wiper of other people’s bottoms….we should stick with methodologies such as those that were used for Obamacare, and the Stimulus, things that guarantee complexity so Byzantine that no one really knows what was done and we ‘have to pass the bill’ to find out what was in it.  Resulting in side effects and hidden clauses that shake out over the course of 10 years, frequently to the detriment of the country.  So, let’s stick with that plan Mr. professional appropriator because, wow, it’s workin just swell.

    And what’s more – this little indicator of mind set – PROFESSIONAL APPROPRIATOR?  A person PAID to appropriate?  from what I can see they are mostly interested in ways to justify appropriation of the nation’s personal wealth.

    As to what it would accomplish?  I don’t know – what did we accomplish with the postage stamp size document we refer to as the Constitution of the United States?

  • On the practical side, it has to be nuts. Given the difficulty in passing the current bills, adding these changes would be a dream world. … There could be a revolt by members, who will want to get home and campaign.

    I would like to smack this individual.  HELLLOOOOO!!!  We don’t pay you wardheelers to “go home and campaign”: we pay you to LEGISLATE.  And we don’t pay you courthouse loafers to pass huge bills that you ADMIT that you don’t read (the better to hide all sorts of pay-offs to your big donors and bribes to various interest groups).

    If Boehner can pull this off, I’d be for erecting a f*cking national monument to him.

  • And that Deficit Commission …

    The final vote was 11-7, short of the 14 votes needed to prompt congressional action according to the panel’s rules. It was supported by three elected Republicans and three elected Democrats, along with five of Obama’s appointees. Three Republicans and three Democrats voted no, along with one Obama appointee.

    4 Democrats and 3 Republicans vote NO