New at Reason
Jacob Sullum suppresses a giggle at George W. Bush's notably late discovery of fiscal responsibility.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Michael Pack | January 30, 2008, 8:43am | #
It's normal to fault one man for spending but,as a classical liberal,I know the truth.Only Congress can spend money.We on this site can beat up on FDR,LBJ,Nixon,Clinton and the Bushes but we know the truth.Spending bills are huge with many unrelated items crammed together.Of course the President can have his wants but Congress must fund them.Woe to the man who veto's massive spending.You'll be accused of hating children,old people and the poor.Bills are so massive that to veto one risks the ire of many.Until Congress controls themselves it will never endReinmoose | January 30, 2008, 8:50am | #
Michael Pack -This is true. Hence why I think maybe the libertarian movement is better off trying to get some senators in there. Presidents are great and high profile and stuff, but if we can simply back a few senatorial candidates from our vast network (developed for the Ron Paul candidacy), it'll be "Sneak attack from the back, 1, 2, 3, 4."
jackanapestarian | January 30, 2008, 8:58am | #
Please remember that Congress does indeed write the bills--that their constituents demand. So point your finger at your fellow Americans. They (and we) are the pigs at the trough.P Brooks | January 30, 2008, 9:06am | #
The point about omnibus spending bills is a good one, but if the President made an honest effort to get out in front of the process and crack the whip, it would make a difference.For example, the President might point out to the members of the House Committee on Government Reform (either privately, or over the airwaves) that there are issues more central to the proper function of government than steroids in baseball. Like procedural changes to eliminate last-minute omnibus spending bills.
Michael Pack | January 30, 2008, 9:22am | #
The President is not supposed to get out in front.The spending starts in the house and the senate was set up to slow things down for discussion.One man facing down 535!You must be kidding.Plus,Congress can have all the hearing they want.The President has no power to stop them.Congress has and is the problem.Lenin could be President and if Congress did there job we'd be fine.Mo | January 30, 2008, 9:31am | #
Michael,If the President's party controls the legislature, as it did for most of Bush's 2 terms, he'd better get out in front. He only cared about spending when the pork primarily went to Democratic districts rather than Republican ones.
P Brooks | January 30, 2008, 9:35am | #
What's this "bully pulpit" I keep hearing about? The President cannot necessarily put a gun to their empty Congressional heads, but he could, if he had the desire and the guts, go over their heads and point out their failures to the People.When were the rules changed to allow the omnibus monstrosities? In the Nixon era, I believe.
Michael Pack | January 30, 2008, 9:40am | #
The Presidents party.Give me a break.The party contains every one from eastern liberals to men[2 or 3]like Ron Paul.Most bills are trade offs,congressmen from opposing parties making deals for themselves.Party means little to these people.Staying in power and getting their share is the means to a end.I'll bet Ted Kennedy has more friends and support among republicans then does Bush.They need each other.Party only counts during an election.Michael Pack | January 30, 2008, 9:48am | #
P Brooks,omnibus bills started after Watergate brought many new faces to the hill.It also brought us spending limits on election[free speech].This entrenched thieves in both parties.I'm sure though Nixion would have agreed.He did bring us wage and price controls and showed a lust for power at all costs.Michael Pack | January 30, 2008, 9:53am | #
Yes there was a show down and more spending won out.Horror stories about no S.S. checks and the gov. shutting down won the day.Remember 'The Gingrich that Stole Christmas'?joe | January 30, 2008, 9:54am | #
Appropriations in Congress can be like a Mexican standoff: you drop yours first, no you drop yours first.The President is in a position to break through this dynamic and serve as a combination of honest broker and fall guy, if he so chooses.
thedifferentphil | January 30, 2008, 10:01am | #
The question is, who was behind dropping the Pay-as-you-go rules in congress. While this made tax cutting difficult, it also made spending increases difficult, which is what allowed the expenditures as a percent of GDP to drop.As I recall, George W Peron's spokesmen repeatedly assured us that the Prez had worked behind the scenes with Senator Frist and Congressman Hastert; there was no reason to veto anything because there was nothing wrong with the Bills which came to him.
Mo | January 30, 2008, 10:24am | #
Not sure if you've read the Constitution, Michael. In there, there's a mechanism for the president to stop Congress from passing a bill. It's called a veto. Bush didn't use it until 2006 for the stem cell bill. He has fewer vetoes/year than any President since Fillmore (except for Garfield and his 6 month presidency). He could've done something about the spending, and vetoes the bills. Grover Cleveland vetoed more bills than all but FDR because he actually opposed pork barrel spending.Medicare Presciption Drug Benefit. Medicare Presciption Drug Benefit. Medicare Presciption Drug Benefit. Medicare Presciption Drug Benefit. Medicare Presciption Drug Benefit. Medicare Presciption Drug Benefit. Medicare Presciption Drug Benefit. Medicare Presciption Drug Benefit.
A concerned follower of Islam | January 30, 2008, 11:18am | #
They (and we) are the pigs at the trough.I am appalled by Reason's insensitivity to the sensitivities of millions of Americans like myself. We should emulate the British by attempting to avoid offending the Muslim faithful.
jackanapestarian | January 30, 2008, 11:55am | #
Sorry. We're like, er, rabbits at the trough.smartass sob | January 30, 2008, 12:46pm | #
...George W. Bush's notably late discovery of fiscal responsibility.Now if we could only get him to discover fecal responsibility...
R C Dean | January 30, 2008, 1:15pm | #
Please remember that Congress does indeed write the bills--that their constituents demand.If by "constituents" you mean "cronies", I would agree.
The President is in a position to break through this dynamic and serve as a combination of honest broker and fall guy, if he so chooses.
I suspect that its the "fall guy" part of this equation that causes it to fail.
Not to mention that, in the hyperpartisan climate prevailing in D.C. for at least the last 15 years, the "honest broker" bit is hard to manage, too.
Michael Pack | January 30, 2008, 1:44pm | #
Mo,I've read it and my posts bear that out.The veto is not a cure for the run away spending we have today.With omnibus bills and earmarks a President would have to veto every bill to bring back fiscal sanity.It was never meant for that.Can you imagine the beating he would take for such action?One man cannot be the end all for government.Nor should they.rvturnage | January 30, 2008, 2:29pm | #
Can someone please explain the whole "More than 90 percent of those earmarks do not have the force of law because they appear in committee reports or other documents outside the spending bills to which they were attached." thing.If the earmarks do not appear in the bil, but in a committee report -- how is the money gets spent on those projects? I understand they don't have the "force of law", but I would assume they get funded nonetheless...otherwise why include them in the report. So, if they do get funded even if they aren't part of the law -- HOW is the funding done, and HOW is it not seen as theft, embezzlement or something?
economist | January 30, 2008, 3:56pm | #
joe, of course, is here to troll the big-government agenda.joe | January 30, 2008, 6:04pm | #
Looks like somebody I've been thumping needed to find a new handle. Again.Why does that keep happening? I'm still joe, with the email address.
J sub D | January 30, 2008, 7:09pm | #
joe,If it'll make you feel better, I'm still here to callout your more than occasional nonsense.
Don't get feeling all lonely, now.
Artman | February 1, 2008, 11:18pm | #
Neo-con = increase spending, buy power using the US treasury, cut taxes, rack-up MASSIVE debt from 2000-2006, pretend you are in favor of small government by pointing at the lower taxes. (No the spending wasn't the war, that was only .6 trillion of the 4 trillion in extra debt we now have - more than $10,000 more debt for EVERY American citizen.)Artman | February 1, 2008, 11:26pm | #
It's almost like current republicans believe that spending more and collecting less is fiscal responsibility. The sad part is that it actually works to mereley cut taxes and the dumb people say "duh, oh see, they are making the government smaller, duh uh. They have principles about government." It's just ridiculous.Artman | February 1, 2008, 11:35pm | #
Just look at the first post by Reinmoose. "the DEMOCRATS want to raise your TAXES". Yes, my simple friend, because we are in massive debt from a republican congress and president who didn't want to raise my taxes. You, Reinmoose, owe upwards of $20,000 now. And each of your kids the same.