Madeline
Rookie
- Banned
- #81
When did earmarks become a central issue, PC?
Are you actually pretending that you don't understand the connection between deficits, that lead to debt, and how pork and earmarks are what increases deficits???
Well, then, here's a primer for you:
1. PAYGO: how to look responsible The idea was to track all new entitlement spending and tax legislation, and, if these are not deficit-neutral by years end, automatic spending cuts would kick in. Congress passed the Budgetary Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990, which specified two new deficit reduction mechanisms: pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules and statutory discretionary spending caps. http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Budget_Gimmick_WP1030.pdf
a. Nancy Pelosi: When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Speeches
b. I Believe In PAYGO. If I Start A New Program I Will Pay For It. (Sen. Obama, Remarks, New York City, NY, 3/27/08)
c. First, politicians exempted major categories of mandatory spending, including Social Security. Cuts in Medicare were limited to 4% Mercatus, Op. Cit.
d. It was never enforced. Over those 12 years, Congress enacted $700 billion in non-offset entitlement expansions and tax cuts, and then cancelled every single sequestration that would have enforced the law. Congress typically waited until the final spending bill of the year, and then simply added a paragraph mandating that PAYGO not be enforced against any past bills. PAYGO is an Unworkable Gimmick | The Heritage Foundation
2.Congress can avoid PAYGO simply by declaring that legislation is too important to worry about the deficit, then they issue a waiver. During the 110th Congress, they dodged PAYGO to the tune of over $400 billion, including the Auto Bailout, Unemployment Extension, two Alternative Minimum Tax patches, Farm Bill, S-CHIP, several Stimulus Bills, and a dozen other.
3. By designating legislation emergency, the legislation can avoid many of the normal budget rules, and, instead, enter the supplemental appropriations process. Realize, the process is designed for events like wars and natural disasters but each year over the last tw-and-a-half decades, Congress and the President have enacted between one and eight supplemental bills, rnging form $1.3 billion in FY 1988 to $120 billion in FY 2007. http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Budget_Gimmick_WP1030.pdf
a. And, of course, pork projects always get added. For instance, the War Supplemental Appropriations Act (2003) appropriated $348 million
for 29 projects unrelated to the war, such as $110 million for the National Animal
Disease Center in Ames, Iowa. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (2005) contained $1.13 billion
for projects that had nothing to do with defense or tsunami relief, including $55 million
for wastewater treatment in De Soto County, Mississippi and $25 million for the For Peck Fish Hatchery in Montana. Ibid.
So, let's summarize.
Neither Senator McCain nor Sec'y Clinton would have allowed the flow of red ink that we are drowning in today.
I despise Clinton to such a degree I can't even discuss her as POTUS with any rationality. As for McCain, exactly what do you think he would have done differently that would have significantly strengthened our economy or reduced unemployment?
Are you convinced he would not have bailed out banks, etc., and their collapse would have been good for us? Do you think he could have designed a more effective stimulus program?
What, exactly?
My own feeling is, no one could have had much positive impact. I did not realize, when I voted for him, just how bad the economy would be and for how long. I voted against McCain because of Palin -- and the one thing Obama could have delivered on despite this economy was social justice. This he has not done to my satisfaction, but still, better Obama than McCain on that score.