Earmarks And Irresponsibility

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post, an article with more details on the Democrats' plan to cut earmarks:

"Among the casualties will be $3 million for AIDS and homelessness programs in San Francisco pushed by House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and $3 million to establish the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, pushed by the center's namesake, the Democrats' incoming House Ways and Means Committee chairman.

Efforts championed by President Bush, such as "clean coal" technology, will take a big hit, but so will programs favored by Democrats. The federal judiciary would run out of money to pay lawyers for poor defendants by July, effectively locking up the wheels of justice because trials could not proceed without legal representation for defendants.

Democrats say they had little choice but to take this tightfisted approach after Republicans dumped so many unfinished spending bills in their lap. "We did not call the shots here," maintained incoming House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who said that with the fiscal year well underway and Democrats assuming power with a full slate of priorities, he will have little choice but to put the government on autopilot. "We will try to provide modest adjustments where we can, but a lot of people will be left short."

But some Republicans suspect that's not the full story.

"What the Democrats didn't say is that they probably intend to take the earmark savings and spend it elsewhere," said Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), who was hoping to get $3 million for a new autism research center at the Florida Institute of Technology."

What Rep. Weldon didn't say is that he probably intends to steal our nation's nuclear secrets and pass them on to Osama bin Laden. Oh, wait: he might not have said that because it's, um, not true. Maybe we should wait for some actual evidence before criticizing people on the basis of things they have not yet done.

Of course, they might spend it on things like this:

"Democrats will make some adjustments in the joint resolution to address the most pressing needs, especially in the Department of Veterans Affairs health-care system, which needs $3 billion more just to keep covering all the veterans it covers now, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which could lose 500 agents under current funding levels, said Tom Gavin, spokesman for incoming Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.)."

The problem with the FBI is the result of previous stupidity (WSJ; subscription required):

"In the course of the House floor debate, for example, general administration funds for the Justice Department were cut to $35.4 million, less than half the 2006 funding level and a nearly 70% cut from the president's request. House members were gambling then that at least some of the money could be restored in final talks with the Senate, but since the appropriations process has collapsed, those talks never took place, and the Justice Department must live with the results."

A bargaining ploy that they just -- oops! -- never got around to undoing. Personally, I'm fine with the democrats' restoring some of that funding, and with funding the VA so that it can keep faith with people who were willing to put their lives on the line for us. Just call me weird.

But here's the kicker: most of us probably know that budget resolutions have tended to be passed very late recently. For me, at least, it was just a general impression of dysfunction, not a pattern I'd tried to nail down. Look what you find when you do:

"It has been nearly 20 years since congressional failures left the government to be financed under spending guidelines and formulas rather than line-by-line policymaking. But to federal budget experts, this year's breakdown was hardly surprising. Not since 1994, the last year of Democratic control, has Congress actually passed all of its spending bills. (Emphasis added.)"

The Congressional Republicans have done Democrats a great favor by making it so easy for us to seem competent by comparison. But they have done the country no service at all.

Comments

[Bruce Baugh]

The Republican Party continues to surprise me. I had known that things were bad with regard to regular budgeting, but not that bad.

[Phil]

Hey, as it turns out, all those Republican earmarks were just bones they threw the Democrats to get them on board with the war. Since, you know, they just couldn't have done it without them.

[John Thullen]

"What Rep. Weldon didn't say is that he intends to steal our nation's nuclear secrets and pass them on to Osama Bin Laden........

..... not true."

Not so fast. What you have here is a guy named Dave which rhymes with Curt who went to the same clown school as Santorum and was taught by the funniest clowns with the floppiest shoes, otherwise known as Gingrich and Norquist and Barnum, all of whom would do anything, including giving our nation's nuclear secrets to Osama bin Laden, if they thought it would add to the circus entertainment they've given us since 1994 and would give them the slightest advantage in their efforts to f--- up our hated government, demonize their fellow Americans, otherwise known as liberals, and hand our enemies every possible advantage.

Elections are too good for these people. A government that is hated so much by people like this ought to hate them back.

I'd suggest a 100% confiscatory tax rate for all former and current Republican officeholders and political appointees spawned by the clown class of 1994. For starters. It's not like their contemptible contempt for their own government could become more contemptuous. Bilious, damaging
people.

I feel sorry for the private sector firms and organizations who take in these sorry, spiteful incompetents. No doubt they'll be the first to ask for backdated option grants, because lying and cheating lets freedom ring.

[paul]

What I really like about this [not!] is that raises for government employees are delayed until whenever the new congress can clean up after the Do-Nothingest congress: then it all arrives in a lump and will be taxed at a higher marginal rate as a result. We'll get it back in 2008(!!), thanks for nothing.

This is a great demonstration of how putting people in charge of something they actively despise is a Really Bad Idea.

I realize the 30% or so of GOP dead-enders will still pull the R lever, but perhaps enough of these facts will emerge to keep that number from growing.