Chilly Posted May 19, 2008 Posted May 19, 2008 Some things never change, and Congress isn't likely to anytime soon. The farm bill passed with a wide enough margin to sustain a veto. Newsflash for all of you Obama and McCain supporters: they aren't going to be successful in getting rid of earmarks. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...bath_water.html Obama's plan is to simply make it more transparent, but without an actual ban on this type of spending, it will continue. Such a ban would be hard pressed to pass Congress, given that this practice is widespread. So the spending is more transparent, big deal It'll still continue, none of the big party supporters will vote them out of office for bringing money to their home district, and the other guys would just do it anyway. This type of "change" is completely useless and a waste of time, but hell, it sure makes us feel good, doesn't it?
/dev/null Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 Obama's plan is to simply make it more transparent, but without an actual ban on this type of spending, it will continue. Such a ban would be hard pressed to pass Congress, given that this practice is widespread. So the spending is more transparent, big deal It'll still continue, none of the big party supporters will vote them out of office for bringing money to their home district, and the other guys would just do it anyway. This type of "change" is completely useless and a waste of time, but hell, it sure makes us feel good, doesn't it? The King is dead. Long live the king Change we can believe in
yall Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 Some things never change, and Congress isn't likely to anytime soon. The farm bill passed with a wide enough margin to sustain a veto. Newsflash for all of you Obama and McCain supporters: they aren't going to be successful in getting rid of earmarks. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...bath_water.html Obama's plan is to simply make it more transparent, but without an actual ban on this type of spending, it will continue. Such a ban would be hard pressed to pass Congress, given that this practice is widespread. So the spending is more transparent, big deal It'll still continue, none of the big party supporters will vote them out of office for bringing money to their home district, and the other guys would just do it anyway. This type of "change" is completely useless and a waste of time, but hell, it sure makes us feel good, doesn't it? Well I do like the transparency. If voters weren't so apethetic it could lead to change in that people might actually demand it. Works better in theory than it does in practice. Does anyone still support the line item veto, or did that go out the window with Reagan and Bush I?
DC Tom Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 Well I do like the transparency. If voters weren't so apethetic it could lead to change in that people might actually demand it. Works better in theory than it does in practice. Does anyone still support the line item veto, or did that go out the window with Reagan and Bush I? I thought the line-item veto died during the Clinton administration, when somebody (I want to say the Supreme Court, but I don't recall) pointed out quite rightly that it was unconstitutional. Stupid idea, anyway...it's one of those things that sounds great only if "your" guy's in power.
yall Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 I thought the line-item veto died during the Clinton administration, when somebody (I want to say the Supreme Court, but I don't recall) pointed out quite rightly that it was unconstitutional. Stupid idea, anyway...it's one of those things that sounds great only if "your" guy's in power. The SCOTUS ruling was kinda stupid, albeit technically correct. The vetoing authority can just veto a bill and say "Hey present me with the same things sans the idiocy" and it has the same effect, but more often than not it is used as political ammunition against them. "Hey did you know president so-and-so vetoed the bill that allows handicapped children to use playgrounds???" Meanwhile attched to the thing was a clause or rider that charges a tax for breathing air. A bit of hyperbole maybe but you get the point.
Steely Dan Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 Well I do like the transparency. If voters weren't so apethetic it could lead to change in that people might actually demand it. Works better in theory than it does in practice. Does anyone still support the line item veto, or did that go out the window with Reagan and Bush I? Almost everybody thinks the government spends waaaaayyyy too much money and needs to cut back, as long as it's not in their community. If a politician really took a hard line on pork or favors for local business' they wouldn't be around too long in most cases. If you want the government to stop spending all the pork decide what things in your community can be cut first.
bills_fan Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 Almost everybody thinks the government spends waaaaayyyy too much money and needs to cut back, as long as it's not in their community. If a politician really took a hard line on pork or favors for local business' they wouldn't be around too long in most cases. If you want the government to stop spending all the pork decide what things in your community can be cut first. Happily. There is plenty.
DC Tom Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 Almost everybody thinks the government spends waaaaayyyy too much money and needs to cut back, as long as it's not in their community. If a politician really took a hard line on pork or favors for local business' they wouldn't be around too long in most cases. If you want the government to stop spending all the pork decide what things in your community can be cut first. Pfft. Community funding? Pork? Screw that...start by looking at what the federal government spends directly first. I work on a project that reports to - no sh-- here - TWENTY TWO different managers. If you only knew how your tax dollars were actually "spent"... Auditor: "You've spent thirty million over the past five years. What did the contractor provide you for that?" Gov't Agency: "Uhhh...status reports. But they're CMMI Level 2 compliant!"
/dev/null Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 Pfft. Community funding? Pork? Screw that...start by looking at what the federal government spends directly first. I work on a project that reports to - no sh-- here - TWENTY TWO different managers. If you only knew how your tax dollars were actually "spent"... Auditor: "You've spent thirty million over the past five years. What did the contractor provide you for that?" Gov't Agency: "Uhhh...status reports. But they're CMMI Level 2 compliant!" CMMI
Recommended Posts