Browse »
Home
»
Posts filed under
Omnibus
C.T.
Let me start my rant with this. I guess I am what you call a true right wing, red to the bone, conservative of Burkean proportions. I am no RINO (Republican In Name Only), no where near a centrist, no where near a liberal, some might even say, no where near a Republican. Despite all that, I would hope that every person wearing any of the titles I mentioned above would be able to find common ground with me on this abusive, non-regulated spending that Congress has been up to for qutie sometime. I have just read through an article by Marc Sheppard, a contributor at the New Media Journal.us. Mr. Sheppard concentrated on the almost inane comments and claims of the illustrious Senate Majority Leader, Dingy Harry Reid. [1] I'm staying away from criticizing ole' Dingy or the Democrat Party. In my opinion, he is just the mouth piece for Congress, party affiliation has nothing to do with this one. What concerns me the most is the information about air-dropped earmaks. This is a relatively new term which came into existence about a year ago.
According to Brad Dayspring, a poster at the Republican Study Committee Blog, an air-dropped earmark by definition is “secretly inserted in back room negotiations between House and Senate appropriators. This means that these specific earmarks were not passed by either the House or Senate during previous consideration of spending bills, were not subject to a point of order, amendment or debate on the floor of either body questioning their merit.” [2] By my laymans understanding, if no legislative consideration is given to these appropriations, then they are illegal and amount to "taxation without representation."
Senator Reid went on to make this odd statement,
“We worked very hard on this bill. And any piece of legislation that we deal with, any appropriation bill, there are earmarks the president has. That's part of the deal.”
With no one in the gallery standing to challenge the peculiar gaffe, the Senate leader went on to suggest that Congressional pork was therefore necessary because “[the president] should not have total control over the appropriation process.” And, lest anyone in the crowd remain anywhere short of thoroughly bewildered, he added:
“So all this airdropping stuff--this is a new term that has just come recently. We followed the rules. No one raised a point of order when it was in the Senate.” [1]
C.T.
Basically, Senator Reid is making excuses. The President can make backdoor appropriations, so why can’t they? I hear this all the time from my kids, "Why can’t I do it if my brother is? It’s not fair!" Give me a break, this is what our elected officials are reduced to? They now possess a play ground mentality when it comes to our money? Congress, simply put, is trying to mask this blatantly immoral and adult mischief with juvenile rebuffs.
It is way passed time for the Congress and the President to stop playing games with our futures. They have obviously proven they are not capable of being adults and continuously try and pander to the American voting block with excuses rather than full disclosure and accountability of their actions.
Yes there is more. President Bush set a cap on the budget at 932 billion dollars. Well wait till you hear this one.
In fact, though, Congress used budget gimmicks and loopholes to fudge the numbers. Meanwhile, Senators and representatives piled on the pork by earmarking billions to more than 11,300 of their pet projects. Result: Lawmakers approved a bill that actually puts the government more than $20 billion over budget. [3]
Then this,
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid both recently dismissed a larger amount, $23 billion, as a “small difference” with the president.House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey(D-Wisc.)shrugged it off as “table scraps.” [3]
Table scraps eh? Roughly, half the worth of Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. This goes beyond partisan politics; this is about the accountability of the legislative and executive branches. If you are interested in a partisan slant, I highly recommend Mr. Sheppard’s article.
Coupling the childish mentality, described earlier, and the laissez-faire attitude towards this "small difference" amounts to a sad representation of the people we have sent to our legislative branch. This does not bode well for them. Is it any wonder Congress’ approval rating is in the toilet?
[1] New Media Journal [2] Republican Study Committee Blog
[3] Heritage Foundation
Continue reading ...
C.T.
What is an Omnibus? An Omnibus spending bill sets the budget for each department of the government all at once. Keep in mind it is just one possible outcome for the budgeting process. Every year Congress must pass individual bills for appropriations funding each department of the government that receives its stipend from discretionary spending. Ex. One bill for the D.O.D, one for the D.O.E., etc. When Congress cannot produce these individual appropriation bills they will group them together into one Omnibus spending bill.
Problem with the Omnibus spending bills is that they are inherently full of pork barrel spending and are often thousands of pages long. Well,the typical American may ask, "How does this effect me?" I am glad you asked.
This years Omnibus spending bill is 3,417 pages long, contains 11,331 earmarks costing the American taxpayer about $20 billion. According to Brian M. Riedi, The Heritage Foundation's lead budget analyst, the President and Democratic congressional leaders promised to cut the number of earmarks to half of what they were in 2005.
Earlier this year, President Bush and Democratic congressional leaders pledged to cut the number of pork projects in half--from the 2005 peak of 13,492 to 6,746.[1]
C.T.
Much of the problem concerning the Omnibull..er..Omnibus is the earmarks. In the past the government grants would be distributed to state and local governments through formulas or to specific groups through an in-place competitive application process.[1] Well, not anymore. Congress now, through some mutated form of the legislative process, is the final word on who receives the government grant by earmarking it for a specific group. This is where the "pork barrel" spending comes in. This means that each congressional member has his own personal account with which he/she can fund their own pet projects, or through the lobbying community auction off their grant money to highest bidder. The return for the congressional member is in the form of campaign contributions or a "public donation." As Mr. Riedi points out earmarks are outside of governmental accountability due to the fact that they are not subject to any application process. They very rarely get audited and the result is they are misappropriated.
Here are some fine examples of earmarks set out in the Omnibus spending bill.
[2]
-$100 million for security at the upcoming political conventions even though it is widely known that presidential elections happen every four years.
-$602 million for crop disaster assistance and livestock assistance despite the fact that farmers had record incomes last year.
-The Charles Rangel "Monument to Me." ($1.95 million)(I love this one)
-Rodent control in Alaska. ($113,000)
-Olive fruit fly research in France. ($213,000)
-A river walk in Massachusetts.($1 million) (Isn't this what local taxes are for?)
-The Advanced Technology Program, which provides research grants to mostly Fortune 500 companies including IBM, 3M, and General Electric, received $65 million in the omnibus.(i.e corporate welfare Oh, and Congress de-authorized this earlier in the year.)
-$20 million increase for the National Endowment of the Arts
-$3.7 million in non-competitive grants to the AFL-CIO
-$16 million for a new House office building although the House already has four office buildings and the Capitol Visitors Center has not been completed.
Mr. Riedi has this to say about reforming earmarks.
Eliminating earmarks would not reduce FY 2008 grant spending, but it would ensure that grants are distributed by merit rather than politics and would stifle the enormous appetite for federal largess. Worthy projects should have no trouble securing funding based on merit; only the unworthy projects would lose funding.[1]
C.T.
I disagree. Rather than reforming the process, phase it out all together. Some of the problems that cause Congress to use this Omnibus is partisan disagreement, party infighting, and Congress's inability to form a budget in a timely manner. Since there seems to be no auditing process in place then there is no way to actually estimate the amount of money being spent uselessly. Do not allow Congress the ability to create earmarks to the budget after the fact. Make them do their jobs and form the budget in a timely manner. If their is still a necessity for such a program as governmental grants, bring back the competitive application process with a timeline stipulation. If the application is not filed by a certain date, then it will not be considered for that fiscal year's budget. $20 billion dollars may not be much when to Congress when you consider the size of the overall budget of the United States. But, if this program exists and accounts for this much abuse, then how many other ones are there without any auditing system in place. This may not solve all of America's woes but it sure as hell is a start. Let's start making the President and Congress, in particular, accountable for their spending habits. I'm not dipping into their bank accounts. Buying my friends and family gifts for Christmas with their money. So why should they do that to us?
Two great articles from the Heritage Foundation which I drew from for this post. I highly suggest reading them.
[1]Omnibus Earmarks Out: President Bush Should Cancel Congress's Pork Spending
[2]Omnibusted: The Top 10 Worst Problems with the Omnibus Spending Bill
Continue reading ...
Posts
