Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, February 6, 2006 at about 11pm CST - Segment 3
Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, February 6, 2006 at about 11pm CST
Segment 3
I went to the Republican Club's meeting today. I spoke to one of the Republican candidates for Congressional District 17 about an idea I had for cutting down on markups and pork.
In our Constitution, the House of Representatives proposes how the moneys of the government will be spent. After getting the spending bills through the Senate, the budget is sent to the President to actually spend the money. "The Congresses proposes and the President disposes" is the old saying. From Jefferson until Nixon, Presidents had the power to impound moneys proposed by the President. In other words, the President could simply not spend the money as Congress wanted it spent. He could not spend it on something else, he could just let the money sit there. President Grover Cleveland did that a lot. Congress could free up the money to be spent, but it was very difficult. Nixon, among his many misdeeds, impounded way too many programs that the Congress wanted spent. In the wake of the Watergate scandals, Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which said that the President could ask Congress to rescind the money. If Congress did not act in 45 days, then the President had to spend the money as prescribed by Congress. That meant that the President could no longer easily stop Congress from spending money.
My proposal is that the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 be modified and the President be given back the power to impound funds with restrictions. I perceive that the President should be given the power to impound the moneys that the Congress has budgeted, BUT he must send notice to Congress saying that he has impounding the money with the reasons he has done so. The Congress would have until the end of the current fiscal year to over ride the President by passing a bill freeing the money the President has impounded.
A rescission bill would have only one item from the budget. It would have a description of how the money was to be spent, the reason or reasons why the President had impounded the money and the reason or reasons why the sponsors thought the money should be spent despite the President's misgivings. A rescission bill could not be amended to include other spending. If the President could not redirect the spending, why should the Congress have that right? The rescission bill could have amendments where other members added their reasons why the money should be spent as directed by Congress. The rescission bill would follow the same path as a regular bill. Both the House and the Senate would have to pass it. There would have to be a reconciliation. between the two houses and a final vote.
The trick would be that each line in the budget that was impounded would have to have a separate bill. This would mean that most pork barrel spending would be stripped from the budget and put to a vote by all members of Congress. Most members would not want that to happen and thus would not own up to having added the offending line in the budget.
On the other hand, this proposal would allow Congress to over ride any impounding of funds that Congress really felt should be spent. You have to remember that our system of government says that the Congress decides how the money should be spent, not the President. On the other hand, there has to be checks and balances on the spending process. In the past, impoundment worked to check an overzealous Congress.
There is one other thing about this idea. The President could veto the rescission bill. At that point it would take a 2/3's majority to over ride his veto. However for a veto of a rescission bill, the President has to give his reasons for doing the veto. He has to point by point refute the reasons that Congress has given for spending the money that he impounded. Whereas Congress would not have to answer why they wanted the money spent, the President would have to say specifically why he did not like their reasons. If Congress over road his veto, then that would be it. The President would have to spend the money as Congress had directed.
Here's the interesting part. All politics is local. The President has shorted one Congressional district by impounding a pork barrel project, probably. In the next Congressional race, the incumbent could use the reasons for impounding the money against him. Think about it. The President would have said why he was impounding the money that was to go to a given Congressional district. What if it is an election year? What if that Congressional district is critical for him to carry the state? That impoundment explanation had better make sense to those people in that district or he might lose that district and thus his chance for re-election.
On the other hand, rescission bills could be a two edged sword. What if the incumbent had given weird reasons for freeing the impounded money? That would mean that his challenger could use that against him or her in the primaries OR in the general election.
Some people would say that this could be abused, because the President could let through lines in the budget for districts he liked or needed for political reasons and impound those for those districts he did not like. Two edged sword again. There are huge watch dog groups out there who tear budgets apart. Were the President to allow some special project through, almost immediately he would have to defend his actions to his base. I mean, the blogosphere would go a bit nuts, if the President let through an obviously phony item in the budget. Of course it wouldn't eliminate all pork or mark ups, because some of them are pretty heavily disguised, but it sure would cut down on them.
The goal of rescission bills would be to check the Executive. Of the tens of thousands of impounded projects, I would think that only a few would be important enough to fight over, but those few would be VERY important. As it is, Congress has no check on its spending except by the President vetoing an entire budget bill. That's overkill by my standards. The President can make a mistake. After reading the reasons in the rescission bill freeing the impounded money, the President would have to think twice about vetoing it.
There is one other thing you have to consider. The growth of Political Action Committees for companies started when impoundment was taken off the table. The President is supposed to represent all the people of the United States. Congress is supposed to represent only their districts. The President is supposed to balance the local with the national. Sometimes the local interests HAVE to give way to the national interests. If the plan I proposed was enacted, PAC's for individual companies would start disappearing, because markups and pork would become rare. If the PAC's for companies stopped existing, then a large amount of the corruption we have bewailed lately would also disappear.
We need a smaller government. This would be one way to shrink government by shrinking the number of ways companies could make a buck off the government. It also has checks and balances in the budgetary process, which is sorely lacking right now. At the vary least the pork and markups would be out in the open where everyone could see them.
Segment 3
I went to the Republican Club's meeting today. I spoke to one of the Republican candidates for Congressional District 17 about an idea I had for cutting down on markups and pork.
In our Constitution, the House of Representatives proposes how the moneys of the government will be spent. After getting the spending bills through the Senate, the budget is sent to the President to actually spend the money. "The Congresses proposes and the President disposes" is the old saying. From Jefferson until Nixon, Presidents had the power to impound moneys proposed by the President. In other words, the President could simply not spend the money as Congress wanted it spent. He could not spend it on something else, he could just let the money sit there. President Grover Cleveland did that a lot. Congress could free up the money to be spent, but it was very difficult. Nixon, among his many misdeeds, impounded way too many programs that the Congress wanted spent. In the wake of the Watergate scandals, Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which said that the President could ask Congress to rescind the money. If Congress did not act in 45 days, then the President had to spend the money as prescribed by Congress. That meant that the President could no longer easily stop Congress from spending money.
My proposal is that the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 be modified and the President be given back the power to impound funds with restrictions. I perceive that the President should be given the power to impound the moneys that the Congress has budgeted, BUT he must send notice to Congress saying that he has impounding the money with the reasons he has done so. The Congress would have until the end of the current fiscal year to over ride the President by passing a bill freeing the money the President has impounded.
A rescission bill would have only one item from the budget. It would have a description of how the money was to be spent, the reason or reasons why the President had impounded the money and the reason or reasons why the sponsors thought the money should be spent despite the President's misgivings. A rescission bill could not be amended to include other spending. If the President could not redirect the spending, why should the Congress have that right? The rescission bill could have amendments where other members added their reasons why the money should be spent as directed by Congress. The rescission bill would follow the same path as a regular bill. Both the House and the Senate would have to pass it. There would have to be a reconciliation. between the two houses and a final vote.
The trick would be that each line in the budget that was impounded would have to have a separate bill. This would mean that most pork barrel spending would be stripped from the budget and put to a vote by all members of Congress. Most members would not want that to happen and thus would not own up to having added the offending line in the budget.
On the other hand, this proposal would allow Congress to over ride any impounding of funds that Congress really felt should be spent. You have to remember that our system of government says that the Congress decides how the money should be spent, not the President. On the other hand, there has to be checks and balances on the spending process. In the past, impoundment worked to check an overzealous Congress.
There is one other thing about this idea. The President could veto the rescission bill. At that point it would take a 2/3's majority to over ride his veto. However for a veto of a rescission bill, the President has to give his reasons for doing the veto. He has to point by point refute the reasons that Congress has given for spending the money that he impounded. Whereas Congress would not have to answer why they wanted the money spent, the President would have to say specifically why he did not like their reasons. If Congress over road his veto, then that would be it. The President would have to spend the money as Congress had directed.
Here's the interesting part. All politics is local. The President has shorted one Congressional district by impounding a pork barrel project, probably. In the next Congressional race, the incumbent could use the reasons for impounding the money against him. Think about it. The President would have said why he was impounding the money that was to go to a given Congressional district. What if it is an election year? What if that Congressional district is critical for him to carry the state? That impoundment explanation had better make sense to those people in that district or he might lose that district and thus his chance for re-election.
On the other hand, rescission bills could be a two edged sword. What if the incumbent had given weird reasons for freeing the impounded money? That would mean that his challenger could use that against him or her in the primaries OR in the general election.
Some people would say that this could be abused, because the President could let through lines in the budget for districts he liked or needed for political reasons and impound those for those districts he did not like. Two edged sword again. There are huge watch dog groups out there who tear budgets apart. Were the President to allow some special project through, almost immediately he would have to defend his actions to his base. I mean, the blogosphere would go a bit nuts, if the President let through an obviously phony item in the budget. Of course it wouldn't eliminate all pork or mark ups, because some of them are pretty heavily disguised, but it sure would cut down on them.
The goal of rescission bills would be to check the Executive. Of the tens of thousands of impounded projects, I would think that only a few would be important enough to fight over, but those few would be VERY important. As it is, Congress has no check on its spending except by the President vetoing an entire budget bill. That's overkill by my standards. The President can make a mistake. After reading the reasons in the rescission bill freeing the impounded money, the President would have to think twice about vetoing it.
There is one other thing you have to consider. The growth of Political Action Committees for companies started when impoundment was taken off the table. The President is supposed to represent all the people of the United States. Congress is supposed to represent only their districts. The President is supposed to balance the local with the national. Sometimes the local interests HAVE to give way to the national interests. If the plan I proposed was enacted, PAC's for individual companies would start disappearing, because markups and pork would become rare. If the PAC's for companies stopped existing, then a large amount of the corruption we have bewailed lately would also disappear.
We need a smaller government. This would be one way to shrink government by shrinking the number of ways companies could make a buck off the government. It also has checks and balances in the budgetary process, which is sorely lacking right now. At the vary least the pork and markups would be out in the open where everyone could see them.
posted by aRandomTexan at
5:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home