Omnibus budget bill: easy come, easy go
It seemed to come out of nowhere, as all these mammoth bills have lately—all two thousand pages of it. For a few days it caused a commotion, but now it has vanished as mysteriously as it came.
Or maybe not so mysteriously. The Omnibus funding bill was so earmark-laden that even some business-as-usual Republicans who were initially willing to go along realized their constituents wouldn’t approve, and so they backed away. The 2010 election and the power of the Tea Party appears to have put the fear into a significant number of members of Congress, if only temporarily.
It’s been a travesty that the Democrats could not or would not pass a funding bill while they had the overwhelming power to do so. Now time seems to have run out, and they’re passing the buck (literally) to the next Congress, in which Republicans will have a much greater say. Then we can watch the Old Guard fight with the New.
Here’s David Rogers’s take at Politico:
For the White House this is the worst case scenario because of the potential for another disruptive “shut down the government” veto fight in February, even as the president is trying to roll out his new budget for 2012.
The GOP paid a heavy price when it did the same in 1995 to then President Bill Clinton, but Obama isn’t without risks. The great mistake Republicans made in 1995 was to bring another issue””Medicare””into the appropriations standoff. But if the GOP learns and simply cuts spending, Obama will find it harder to veto the bill for fear he will be accused of shutting down the government himself.
According to Rich Lowry, McConnell and McCain were instrumental in reminding Republicans tempted to vote “yea” of the results of the 2010 election.
As for me, I’m especially pleased because hidden in the vast recesses of the bill was funding for Obamacare. It would be good if a simple and “clean” funding bill could be passed extending present funding to tide over the government until the new Congress can tackle the issues inherent in a budget bill, and give them proper weight. And then we’ll see what Obama will do in response.
This could be a watershed event if the GOP can quickly take the 2011 budget back to the advertised 2008 level, even though the target should be the 2006 level, or lower.
Next the focus must start reducing the preponderance of recent strangling regulation. That may be a bigger test for our next Congress. Any bets on even modest success before 2013?
What’s so disgusting about earmarks isn’t the dollar amount. After all, in a $1.3 trillion dollar budget, $8 billion of earmarks is only six-tenths of a percent. The senators say that the earmarks enable them to have a say in how the money is spent, rather than leaving it up to the White House. But we all know they put the earmarks in there because they think it will buy votes from their constituents. And the “leadership” uses the earmarks to get votes for these giant stinking bills. So to try to get themselves re-elected, these low-lifes will fund a monument to a dead Senator for a few million bucks, meanwhile passing a bill that loads our grandchildren with $1.3 trillion of debt. “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Wales?”
Actually, Stark while the Feds and States could arguably do with deregulation of some things, (particularily things involving small businesses and some enviro regulations) it’s quite obvious that others need more regulation, not less. For instance, the entire Finance industry has an extensive problem with under-regulation and “captured” regulatory agencies and people should be banned from going back and forth between the gov’t and private industry.
Stark and Brad,
They could also make some inroads into simplifying the tax system and maybe flattening tax rates.
Regarding the Commerce Clause thread recently. Here is what Judge Vinson said:
“It would be a giant leap for the Supreme Court to say that a decision to buy or not to buy is tantamount to activity,” Judge Vinson told the court. … “If they decide that everyone needs to eat broccoli,” then the commerce clause could allow Congress to require everyone to buy a certain quantity of broccoli, the judge said.
This stupid little trick of defining an end which will serve as justification to employ means, the means being the real end, and then claiming the commerce clause allows means beyond enumerated powers, is travesty, outrage, and treason. Lawyers, as Neo stated, can get around anything. Let’s get a rope around their necks.
Congressional leaders always count the votes before they really count the votes. I’m guessing there were some conservative Democrats who did not want to vote for that omnibus bill.
I called all my representatives yesterday and gave them hell about the Omnibus, Start, and the Dream Act. Did it in anger, but believed it would do little. I’m gratified to learn that I wasn’t the only one who was calling. We need to keep on these people. They are just a phone call away.
Here’s where you can get their numbers and addresses:
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/congress/phone-numbers-and-mailing-addresses-memb.html
expat:
You are correct. The current tax structure encourages fraud and exemption by special interest, in addition it is too complicated, wastes lots of time and productivity and is a boon to tax lawyers.
I’d even be up to supporting a flat tax if there was an exception for say, the first 15 or 20 k of income, which would be the one bit of “progressivism” I would insist on.
So far, the recent election seems to be helping…
How did the 1924 page Omnibus Bill emerge, suddenly and fully formed, from the legislative sea? That’s an important question, should’ve been asked about the other humongous bills in the near-past session.
I’ve only seen one reference to authorship (? in WSJ) of Omnibus: Sen. Inouye, who reportedly incorporated ALL the earmarks filed by members of both parties before the Repubs forswore earmarks months ago. The Bill had long ago completed its gestation. Thus 6400, and all the rest of it, suddenly saw the light of day.
In addition to other needed reforms, I will hope for a documented trail of authorship on all bills, to accompany each bill when filed. You know, kinda like the trailers on NYT articles that joe, shmoe, sam and ham contributed to the story (though not enough to make the byline).