Next?

Rich Lowry complains:

Who needs a debt commission when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is on the case?

He wants to allow federal agencies to redirect half of any unnecessary, unspent money in their budgets to other initiatives and half to deficit reduction. Currently, agencies must return all money they don’t spend, giving them an incentive to spend it all.

Blame Congress for that. The position of every president from George Washington through Richard Nixon was that Congressional spending authorizations were just that, authorizations not mandates. That was struck down by the Supreme Court during the Nixon Administration. The executive branch must spend what the Congress appropriates on the measures for which the Congress appropriates it. Blame Congress.

Next?

4 comments… add one
  • sam Link

    “Blame Congress.” Ultimately, blame the electorate. We do get the government we deserve. I think Mike Reynolds put his finger on the thing over at OTB: We’re really a nation of liberals who like libertarian rhetoric. It’s become a commonplace that while everybody is pissed off at Congress, their congresscritter is usually exempt from the general disapprobation. I’d bet it’s the same with overspending: Spending on those things, projects, whatever is over the top, but spending on my things, projects, whatever is different.

  • Ultimately, blame the electorate.

    Under our current system of gerrymandered districts and enormous advantages to incumbents I temper my views of the responsibility of voters.

    I also disagree with that characterization of American politics. I think that Americans are opportunists who like libertarian rhetoric. They’ll look for handouts and accept them when they’re available.

    Consider the list of Congressmen for my district in Chicago: Annunzio, Yeats, Schakowsky, Emanuel, Quigley. My largely independent area has been gerrymandered for forty years with the significantly more liberal Lake Shore area of Chicago. If it hadn’t been I have little doubt that the district would have elected Republicans or even independents instead of the regular Democrats who are invariably elected. Precisely what am I to do? If I move to another district the story will be the same except possibly in reverse.

    I still have a few hopes for Quigley. I’ll be writing him my first letter (I’ve written to every Congressman I’ve ever had, multiple times) soon.

  • sam Link

    “I think that Americans are opportunists who like libertarian rhetoric. They’ll look for handouts and accept them when they’re available.”

    Fair enough.

  • sam Link

    Quod erat demonstratum or sumthin:

    Fincher opponents raise issue of crop subsidies

    WASHINGTON — Republican congressional candidate Stephen Fincher’s receipt of $3.2 million in federal crop subsidies since 1999 is likely to be a major issue in a year of Tea Party political ascendancy within the GOP.

    Some see Fincher’s receipt of subsidies as a potential conflict of interest if he wins the 8th District seat being vacated by U.S. Rep. John Tanner and is there when Congress debates and votes on a 2012 Farm Bill.

    The perceived front-runner, a gospel-singing critic of wasteful federal spending who has the support of the National Republican Congressional Committee, is also smarting from news reports that he has voted in Democratic primaries as recently as 2006.

    Fincher, along with his father and brother, farm in seven West Tennessee counties. All together, they have received $8.9 million in crop subsidies in the past 10 years, mostly from the cotton program, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data aggregated by the Washington-based think tank The Environmental Working Group.

    The candidate and his wife, Lynn, have received $3.2 million, including more than $3 million for cotton farming, according to the data.

Leave a Comment