TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- WSJ: Federal government is 185 times as big as it was 100 years ago

WSJ: Federal government is 185 times as big as it was 100 years ago

quote:

Time for a Time-Out? Will the GOP learn its lesson on pork? Monday, September 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT If Republicans lose big in November, one reason will be their tardy response to public outrage over profligate spending. The guilty pleas of former GOP Rep. Duke Cunningham and lobbyist Jack Abramoff prompted demands for reform of the earmarks--pork projects members often secure in secret--that were prominent in both scandals. On Thursday, the House did finally pass a rules change that will force sponsors to attach their names to projects. The Senate isn't expected to follow suit, meaning earmark reform there must wait until next year. On the plus side, both houses this month did pass the Federal Transparency Act. It creates a public Internet database that will allow Google-like searches of the $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts and loans. The "shame factor" the bill will heighten is needed, given that earmarks grew tenfold between 1990 and 2005. As modest as it is, the transparency bill spent much of August in limbo after Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens of Alaska, chief defender of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," put a hold on it, using the tradition allowing any senator to secretly block a bill. These games feed the perception of an out-of-touch Congress and demoralize many GOP voters. "Every event I go to, someone complains about overspending and pork," says Rep. Chris Chocola of Indiana, one of the most embattled GOP incumbents. "They still don't think we get it." Many members simply don't believe the political costs of pork can ever exceed the benefits. Democrats have been largely silent. After all, they get about 45% of them even as a minority. "One man's pork is another man's steak," is how many members dismiss reform. Congressional appropriators argue that earmarks represent less than 1% of the federal budget and are often worthy projects. But earmarks have a budgetary impact far beyond their dollar cost. "They are a gateway drug on the road to spending addiction," says Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. Many members feel compelled to vote for bloated spending bills, fearing their local projects will be stripped out. Earmarks have also dramatically expanded lobbying. "Lobbyists go client hunting, telling cities they can virtually guarantee an earmark," says Ron Utt of the Heritage Foundation. In 2005, nearly 4,000 companies or local governments hired lobbyists to pursue earmarks, up from just 1,865 five years ago. Jack Abramoff is a case in point. Earmarks by the thousands inevitably bring scandals by the dozens. This month has already brought two. The U.S. attorney in New Jersey subpoenaed records from a deal involving Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez and a Hudson County nonprofit that starting in 1994 paid Mr. Menendez a total of $329,353 to rent a building that he owned. At the time, the nonprofit was run by a political ally of Mr. Menendez. Later, the same group was the recipient of millions in federal funding after Mr. Menendez, then in the House, broadened federal grant standards to include that nonprofit. Meanwhile, Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington state, helped arrange $11.6 million in federal earmarks in the past year for projects benefiting clients of a lobbyist who is advising her re-election campaign and still owes her between $15,000 and $50,000 from a personal loan. Both senators say they sought the funding because it benefited their states. Republicans have their own earmark problems. The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis has steered hundreds of millions in federal funds to clients of lobbyist Bill Lowery, a former congressman who is so close to Mr. Lewis that they have exchanged two key staff members, "making their offices so intermingled that they seem to be extensions of each other." Sen. Stevens defends the earmark process, claiming "discretionary federal spending isn't out of whack," despite all evidence to the contrary. He admits a lot of the earmarks now being handed out wouldn't have passed constitutional muster before the Great Society, but no one is more tenacious in seeing his state now gets its maximum share. Humoring him has cost Republicans credibility. He has become an icon of earmark excess, starting with the fact that he's given his name to Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. Earmarks appear to be a family business. Bill Bittner, his brother-in-law, is a D.C. lobbyist who has hauled in dozens of earmarks for his clients. His son, Ben, is the majority leader of the Alaska Senate, and while in office has collected large consulting fees from companies that benefited from some of dad's earmarks. Last month, federal agents raided the offices of Ben Stevens and a half-dozen other Alaska legislators, investigating ties between them and an oil-services company. Some of the legislators involved even referred to themselves as "the Corrupt Bastards Club." Alaska officials admit the perception of favoritism in local contracts and federal earmarks is embarrassing the state. Similar embarrassment is spreading to Congress. Staffers are appalled at how members prostitute the institution by scraping the bottom of the pork barrel. Rep. Dan Lungren of California says that "members are now much more mere errand boys for local government and constituents." Rep. Chocola supports extending the term limits that now apply to all committee chairmen to all members of the Appropriations Committee. "It's clear appropriators see the world differently from all the rest of us," he told me. Term limits would at least limit how much their vision could be warped while serving on Congress's "favor factories." The ban on gifts to members and their staff should also be extended to local governments and universities seeking earmarks. President Bush could also do more. Republican Sen. Jim DeMint notes that the Congressional Research Service has found that 95% of recent earmarks were slipped into committee reports and not written into law. "These non-legislated earmarks are not legally binding," he says. "President Bush could ignore them. He doesn't need a line-item veto." The federal government is now an astounding 185 times as big in real terms as it was a century ago. A general sense that Republicans have forgotten why they were sent to Washington is a big reason why only 43% of Republicans approve of Congress in this month's Fox News poll. If Republicans can't better explain how they plan to get a grip on spending, many voters will conclude they both deserve and need a time-out from power. http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008960

When party ideology fails and said party has control of both the executive and legislative branch, I think I'm ready for change. Clearly I'm being lied to.

just coz im lazy, what are the differences between the two houses in the US? ie over here the lower house is what forms the government & the upper house is (supposedly) a state's house & house of legislative review. obviously you have the whole president factor which is different but i was wondering how the two houses related.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN just coz im lazy, what are the differences between the two houses in the US? ie over here the lower house is what forms the government & the upper house is (supposedly) a state's house & house of legislative review. obviously you have the whole president factor which is different but i was wondering how the two houses related.

The Senate is more senior (only 100 members) and is empowered with greater powers. Not to go into details, the senate staff select committeess that wield great power when it comes to running the government's day to day business. When a Senate committee agrees unanimously to something it's frequent that the rest of the Senate follows their recommendation. Every bill has to pass the lower house (400+ members) and then pass the senate by a majority vote and then pass the President. You'll see some dumbasses in the lower house, but the Senate by and large are very intelligent individuals. The Senate is less subject to partisan politics. You'll see senators who are more evenhanded and subscbribe to principles as opposed to party ideologies of the moment.

I have no oppinion on this since I work for the Feds protecting you people from the Axis of Evil.

Long live big government!!

earmarks? wtf that was just a long rant about nothing and the thread subject is misleading. terrible

quote:

Originally posted by occrider You'll see senators who are more evenhanded and subscbribe to principles as opposed to party ideologies of the moment.

Those are the ones that get fuked sadly. It sadens me that most of our elected senators have to work for their party and not for the people of their state.

Everything now is consumed with pure bs, instead of them being patriotic to our nation they are playing with our security just to prove that the other party is weak or that they are doing shyt wrong.

Oh and dont forget some play the "moral card"

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 earmarks? wtf that was just a long rant about nothing and the thread subject is misleading. terrible

dude

your icon picture... wow... that has to go.

i think you need to do:

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX I have no oppinion on this since I work for the Feds protecting you people from the Axis of Evil. Long live big government!!

Big Government = Centralized Power = Tyranny.

EDIT: Quite contrary to the original American ideal.

Re: WSJ: Federal government is 185 times as big as it was 100 years ago

quote:

Originally posted by occrider When party ideology fails and said party has control of both the executive and legislative branch, I think I'm ready for change. Clearly I'm being lied to.

I can't but help but think about the fear many of the founding fathers had of the establishment of a Federal Government. Their fears are our reality.

Government only begets more government.

The only time they can't is when they've sqeezed their constituents so tight they have no alternative but to lay off their own people...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Government only begets more government. The only time they can't is when they've sqeezed their constituents so tight they have no alternative but to lay off their own people...

I think we're pretty damn close to that point, if not at it already.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Big Government = Centralized Power = Tyranny. EDIT: Quite contrary to the original American ideal.

I use to feel that way, till I started working for them..

A big governement is necessary. There are more people and challenges that need a big gov. The only thing i hate the most is when gov gives free handouts to people. And when they say the land you bought is theirs. When you are the one paying taxes.

In other words this gov would still be a problem if it was small because they have a lot of power over us anyways that it wouldn't matter what their size was.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX I use to feel that way, till I started working for them..

And now you are a fascist bastard.....

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.