NYT editorial: Waste, Fraud and the Truth
We certainly can’t argue with the stated goal of the proposal that President Obama sent to Congress on Monday — the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010. It is an obvious challenge to the many Republicans who spent much of the last decade helping drive up the deficit with unjustifiable tax cuts and unrestrained spending and who are now caterwauling about fiscal responsibility.
Unfortunately, it would have little effect on the deficit, and it could feed misperceptions that will make it even harder to deal with the problem.
About two-thirds of federal spending is automatic and mandatory — mostly Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the national debt. The other one-third, handled annually in 12 bills, is for everything else, with the biggest chunk by far going to the military.
The Obama administration’s proposal would target that discretionary spending. After each of the appropriations bills is signed, the president would submit to Congress a package of proposed cuts, known as rescissions, of specific items that he finds objectionable. Current law allows the president to do that, but Congress is not required to act. Mr. Obama’s proposal would require Congress to consider the president’s rescissions as a package and to vote yes or no, without amendment.
(Original here.)
Unfortunately, it would have little effect on the deficit, and it could feed misperceptions that will make it even harder to deal with the problem.
About two-thirds of federal spending is automatic and mandatory — mostly Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the national debt. The other one-third, handled annually in 12 bills, is for everything else, with the biggest chunk by far going to the military.
The Obama administration’s proposal would target that discretionary spending. After each of the appropriations bills is signed, the president would submit to Congress a package of proposed cuts, known as rescissions, of specific items that he finds objectionable. Current law allows the president to do that, but Congress is not required to act. Mr. Obama’s proposal would require Congress to consider the president’s rescissions as a package and to vote yes or no, without amendment.
(Original here.)
1 Comments:
I disagree with the NYTimes OpEd writer ... although this is not ideal, it might be the only way to weed out big programs and small.
It could force a vote on simple questions ... for example, the F/A-18 Hornet jet ... there are 124 in production ... the Pentagon asked for 22 more ... Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri added 8 more to this year's budget .... Do Minnesotans think Mr. Akin can plan better than the Pentagon or is Mr. Akin motivated by the fact that Boeing has a plant in his district that is involved in the production of that plane ? Or, let's rephrase the question, is spending an additional $440,000,000 for these eight planes in the taxpayer's best interests ?
In Minnesota, John Kline likes to play a "shell game" where Kline talks about small domestic projects --- yes, that many of us would agree are unnecessary -- while ignoring and VOTING FOR high cost military projects that are unnecessary.
On my blog, I asked a question : How does President Obama’s $548.9 billion Department of Defense FY2011 Budget become approved as a marked-up budget of $726 billion without “Earmarks” ?
Answer : “Programmatic Requests”
The GOP has a moratorium on "earmarks", so they now call them "Programmatic Requests" ... and the boondoggle spending continues.
Whatever it takes to get us out of this pickle is a good idea .... and speaking of pickles, did you know that Rep. John Boozman (R-Arkansas) wants so be a Senator and has authored an "earmark" for “Pickle Science and Technology” so that a study can be made “to increasing product value by improving production and quality of pickled vegetables.” With the continued spending of taxpayer money on initiatives like these, it is not surprising that taxpayers are in a financial pickle of more than $12.7 trillion in debt.
Post a Comment
<< Home