A glimmer of hope

Dr.Who

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
6,776
Location
Horse Country
Finally a group of politicians doing the right thing.

"The third party on Capitol Hill, Washington's gray-haired conservatives used to grumble, was the "Appropriators Party" -- an autonomous, bipartisan bloc of obdurate spenders and shameless porkers who marched in lockstep with their committee leaders and were rewarded with the choicest earmarks.

But a rump of conservative Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee has quietly rebelled this year against the committee leaders by repeatedly doing what was once unthinkable for an appropriator: voting on the House floor against the chairman on appropriations amendments, and even appropriations bills.

Even more unfathomable, a handful of Republican appropriators have voted against spending bills.

"I didn't sign a contract with the Appropriations Committee," rookie appropriator Republican Tom Graves of Georgia told me, "promising to approve everything that comes out of the committee and oppose everything that would change that." Graves was explicitly flouting what used to be an iron law for his committee: Appropriators stand united on the floor.

Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona leads the small group of conservative dissidents on the Appropriations Committee. Getting Flake onto the committee had been a cause celebre for movement conservatives for years, and when House Speaker John Boehner agreed, it was an early sign that the Tea Party was exerting some real influence on the House GOP leadership.

During the February debate over H.R. 1, the omnibus spending bill for the current fiscal year, Flake voted for 14 different floor amendments opposed by Chairman Hal Rogers (Ky.) as well as former chairman Bill Young (Fla.), who is the most senior Republican on the committee. This didn't happen before the Tea Parties.

In 2006 and 2007, when Flake offered a series of floor amendments to trim pork-barrel items (like upgrades of city-owned swimming pools), Republican appropriators opposed Flake en bloc.

Today, not only are chairman-opposed amendments an open question, but even entire appropriations bills are fair game for committee Republicans -- Flake was one of three GOPers to vote no on H.R. 1 on the floor.

This used to be excommunicable. In 1995, freshman Mark Neumann voted against the defense appropriations bill (in protest over President Clinton's unauthorized intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina). For this insubordination, Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston kicked Neumann off the committee.

Where Neumann stood alone, Flake has a posse of anti-appropriators. Wyoming Rep. Cynthia Lummis, in her second term, is the league leader in bucking the committee leadership -- she voted against Rogers and Young 16 times during the H.R. 1 floor debate, and with Flake she opposed the entire bill in committee.

Rehberg, Graves, and Kevin Yoder of Kansas also reached double digits on voting against Rogers and Young.

Graves is a true Tea Partier, elected in a special election in 2010 with the backing of Tea Party groups. He advocates statutory budget caps tied to gross domestic product as a way to "handcuff" congressional spending.

Yoder, a freshman, was an appropriator in the Kansas Legislature, and a card-carrying member of the moderate wing of the state's very divided GOP. But in 2010, Yoder ran for Congress as a conservative, and now as a Washington appropriator, he's voting like a conservative.

The fifth anti-appropriator is even more clearly a convert. Denny Rehberg, of Montana, has sat on the committee since 2004, but only this year he started voting a bit like Flake. Rehberg had opposed all of Flake's anti-pork amendments in 2006 and 2007, but on H.R. 1 this year, Rehberg bucked Rogers and Young on 11 amendments.

Perhaps explaining the change of heart, Rehberg is running for Senate, and some fiscal conservatives, displeased with Rehberg's record over the past decade, are looking to give him a Tea Party-like challenge.

What has weakened the Appropriations Party? What's the difference between today and 1995, when Livingston kept the upstart conservatives in check?

The first difference is the more explicit tension between the party's leadership and its younger dissidents: Speaker Boehner is constantly wary of alienating the Tea Partiers and other conservatives. Expelling Flake, Lummis or Graves from the committee would spark a revolt.

Second is power in numbers. "They do caucus," one GOP aide said of the anti-appropriators.

A third difference: the earmark ban. Short of kicking members off the committee, the chairman used to use earmarks -- the promise of more pork or the threat to strip existing pork -- to enforce loyalty from other appropriators. That's why Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., calls earmarks "the gateway drug to a spending addiction," and it's why banning them could save taxpayers much more than a more simplistic accounting would suggest.

Even after the current budget skirmishes end, spending will be a contentious battleground. And in that fight, the anti-appropriators could be the taxpayers' best friends.

Timothy P. Carney, The Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washington*************. His column appears Monday and Thursday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com."

http://washington*************/politics/2011/04/gop-anti-appropriators-break-spending-party
 
Werbung:
"This used to be excommunicable. In 1995, freshman Mark Neumann voted against the defense appropriations bill (in protest over President Clinton's unauthorized intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina). For this insubordination, Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston kicked Neumann off the committee."

Are we getting some insight into how the politicians keep "Mr. Smith" from going to Washington?
 
BigRob, et al,

For improper focus on the needs of America.

For what? Accepting political reality?
(COMMENT - Very Much in General)

I completely understand that, in the last five (5) decades, no one in Washington has taken the position to rebuild America; its infrastructure, its industrial base, its economic power, and our leadership in science-&-technology. There are no major political influences that have taken-up the banner that America needs to focus on our domestic needs, no one wanting to build the next Great Library of Alexandria, research institution that bring the next great leaps of discovery, or exponentially improve our ability to establish and hold a competitive advantage in commerce.

This kind of position directly relates to employment, jobs, that generate revenue in the economy and to the government that can be reinvested and improve our standing even more. We have not reinvested in our youth of the nation. By spurring growth in the fields driven by science & technology, we could drop the cost of education, build a need for engineers (builders) and scientists (discoverers), and expand the expectation and horizons of a nation – first in the world, for everything under the Sun.

BUT, in order to achieve that, you have to change a mind set in Washington DC. Inside the Beltway, there is a single mindedness of “utilitarian purpose” – “maximizing the wealth of the shareholder” is the mantra that fosters – get what you can no matter how many jobs it cost America. It is an idea that needs reigned-in; tempered with the need of building “our nation” and not centered on the economies of other nations.

Most people, like yourself, think their is some sort of overriding --- "political reality" that supercedes the decision making process; and believe the party line of people like House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid --- they believe that these men are working in the best interest of the nation; when in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. They work in their own best interest --- not that of the nation.

There is no "political reality" that dictates that "we" (America) have to get involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen (just to name a few) and invest in their stabilitization efforts with no expectation of a return on investment. Iraq, alone, cost the nation 4000+ war dead, more than 30,000 wounded, and some $800B in treasure. And how is that working for us.

"Political Reality" is not written in stone. It is very changeable and moldable. We just need a Washington Leadership that believes in America and wants to take care of America First.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
et al,

All I have to say is that we should fire House Speaker John Boehner and every member of Congress.

v/r
R

Remember how excited many of us got when the "massacre of 1994" occurred, and the Republicans took over the House Of Representatives with their "Contract For America"?

Many of us thought that all of those fresh new ideas and all of that "young blood" would really change things for the better.

So what happened? This country still had a Democrat President (Clinton), and he had his VETO pen ready to go. Gingrich got caught up in some peronal "scandals" and became the prime target of the leftist news media. Ultimately, not a whole lot got done, and what did get done was not what we were promised, because Clinton stood in the way.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, except for the U.S. debt and deficit spending. That always increases.

Boehner is a coward, not to mention a crybaby. The man has some emotional instability, and he's a jellyfish. He is a non-starter.

Time to punt, and defend our own goal lines at home The clowns in D.C. sure as hell aren't going to help any of us, because they are the enemies of the people.
 
BigRob, et al,

For improper focus on the needs of America.

According to....you?

I completely understand that, in the last five (5) decades, no one in Washington has taken the position to rebuild America; its infrastructure, its industrial base, its economic power, and our leadership in science-&-technology. There are no major political influences that have taken-up the banner that America needs to focus on our domestic needs, no one wanting to build the next Great Library of Alexandria, research institution that bring the next great leaps of discovery, or exponentially improve our ability to establish and hold a competitive advantage in commerce.

Is this a joke? Because the government (and the private sector) have come leaps and bounds in five short decades. The creation of the internet is just one of many examples in which America took the lead and created a massive economic opportunity for the whole world.

This kind of position directly relates to employment, jobs, that generate revenue in the economy and to the government that can be reinvested and improve our standing even more. We have not reinvested in our youth of the nation. By spurring growth in the fields driven by science & technology, we could drop the cost of education, build a need for engineers (builders) and scientists (discoverers), and expand the expectation and horizons of a nation – first in the world, for everything under the Sun.

BUT, in order to achieve that, you have to change a mind set in Washington DC. Inside the Beltway, there is a single mindedness of “utilitarian purpose” – “maximizing the wealth of the shareholder” is the mantra that fosters – get what you can no matter how many jobs it cost America. It is an idea that needs reigned-in; tempered with the need of building “our nation” and not centered on the economies of other nations.

It seems to me that you are advocating for protectionism in a global economy...the only thing that is going to do is slow America down.

Most people, like yourself, think their is some sort of overriding --- "political reality" that supercedes the decision making process; and believe the party line of people like House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid --- they believe that these men are working in the best interest of the nation; when in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. They work in their own best interest --- not that of the nation.

I don't believe that any politician is always working in my best interest, but to argue that political realities do not factor into the decision making is naive...as a former Hill staffer and campaign consultant, I can tell you that the political reality is definitely a factor that is always considered.

There is no "political reality" that dictates that "we" (America) have to get involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen (just to name a few) and invest in their stabilitization efforts with no expectation of a return on investment. Iraq, alone, cost the nation 4000+ war dead, more than 30,000 wounded, and some $800B in treasure. And how is that working for us.

Yes there is a political element that factors into those decision...and we do see returns on our overseas investments...the benefits we derive from being a superpower far outweigh the negatives...

There is only one choice...do we want to take a leading role in the world, or do we want to let someone else fill that vacuum and play servant to them?

That said, I can agree that we should only involve ourselves overseas when we have interests at stake...we had no real interests at stake in Egypt, or Libya, and should stay out of the way.

"Political Reality" is not written in stone. It is very changeable and moldable. We just need a Washington Leadership that believes in America and wants to take care of America First.

Most Respectfully,
R

I get your point, but I find that line of thinking to be a dated mentality....we live in a global society.. what happens around the world can have a massive impact within our borders...you say you want to take care of American first, but I would argue that often means we have to go overseas to effectively accomplish such a goal.
 
BigRob; et al,

I respect your opinion. It has merit.

Is this a joke? Because the government (and the private sector) have come leaps and bounds in five short decades. The creation of the internet is just one of many examples in which America took the lead and created a massive economic opportunity for the whole world.
(COMMENT)

Oh, there is no doubt that science and technological advancements have been made in the last half century; but the rate of advancement has measurably slowed down considerably. While we did get to the Moon, you will also note that the last of the Space Shuttles are about to end thier era of flight. While we invented the Computer Mouse, we don't actually make the mouse, or the computer in most cases. You cannot find a US made TV any more. And while Jim Barton and Mike Ramsay are responsible for the DVR, you don't see those being made on mass in the US. In fact, while you can point to many US contributions the US has made in the early part of the last half century, you will not find many of those items in you home that are made in the US. All of this changes the landscape for job opportunities in the future and employment revenues that power the economy.

This will be the first time, since WWII, that a generation will grow-up to an expectation of a standard of living less than the previous generation.

It seems to me that you are advocating for protectionism in a global economy...the only thing that is going to do is slow America down.
(COMMENT)

The global economy is what it is. We cannot control that, but we want to be part of it.

It is important to be fully engaged with in each aspect of that “global economy;” complete with production facilities (industrialization), scientific achievements (education and research), innovative developments in the exploitation of new technologies.

We cannot become a country that is merely service oriented. That will be our death.

I don't believe that any politician is always working in my best interest, but to argue that political realities do not factor into the decision making is naive...as a former Hill staffer and campaign consultant, I can tell you that the political reality is definitely a factor that is always considered.
(COMMENT)

Politics "always" factors in to the equation --- but, usually to our detriment.

Whether you talk about the "tax code" or the way that congress "takes care of its own," --- "energy policy" or the "military conflicts," the decision making processes have not worked-out well for America.

Yes there is a political element that factors into those decision...and we do see returns on our overseas investments...the benefits we derive from being a superpower far outweigh the negatives....
(COMMENT)

We are not a "superpower." (That is old school talk.)

While the military can accomplish many of the tasks we set before it, it is no longer "Persuasive in Peace – and Invincible in War.”

Iraq's Sadr Front officials affirm that Cleric Moqtada Al Sadr's vow to resume Mehdi Army's opposition if US Forces remain in Iraq is aimed as well against the diplomatic, logistic and even cultural US presence in Iraq.

It is not a matter of our Military Force itself, but the way in which the Leadership maintains it; and employs it. You simply cannot say, that just because we have an offensive nuclear capability, that rivals all others, that we are a "Superpower." You can win every battle and still lose politically. We've learned that in Vietnam, we are learning this in Iraq, and we are about to learn it again in Afghanistan.

But BEYOND military force, to be a "superpower" has a greater meaning, a meaning that encompasses our economic power, our industrial strength and our scientific accomplishments (and maybe much more).

There is only one choice...do we want to take a leading role in the world, or do we want to let someone else fill that vacuum and play servant to them?.
(COMMENT)

We don't have to "take charge" to be a leader, we don't have to be evangelistic to have followers. If we are doing it right, they will look to America naturally.

That said, I can agree that we should only involve ourselves overseas when we have interests at stake...we had no real interests at stake in Egypt, or Libya, and should stay out of the way..
(COMMENT)

Agreed... But it goes beyond that small battlespace as well.

I get your point, but I find that line of thinking to be a dated mentality....we live in a global society.. what happens around the world can have a massive impact within our borders...you say you want to take care of American first, but I would argue that often means we have to go overseas to effectively accomplish such a goal.
(COMMENT)

Yes! I'm a Babyboomer. And maybe my line of thinking is "dated."

If advocating for a:

  • Strong and modern infrastructure; a power grid that won’t collapse the whole NE Coast (and parts of Canada) when a Reactor goes off-line in Ohio, a highway system free of pot holes, a railway system that works,
  • Progressive and affordable education system that graduates Engineers, Doctors, and Scientists that will build a stronger America,
  • Industrial, Commercial and Economic environment that will employ our Engineers, Doctors and Scientist,
  • Path to an new age of enlightenment, where America is the Center of Learning, building the new halls of information, pathways of development,
If all that is defined as being "dated mentality," THEN, (regretably) I am; no question about it. I defer to your better judgement.

But I have, and always will, be in defense of the nations right to be first, not just militarily (even though I am retired military), economically, industrially, scientifically and the commercially.

IMO, a Political Entities are akin to Snake Oil Salesmen. They will tell you anything to gain your support. But leave it to Hollywood to make it memorable:

Dr. Jeffrey Pelt said:
I'm a politician, which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops.

Most Respectfully,
R
(AKA: Old School)
 
Werbung:
BigRob; et al,

I respect your opinion. It has merit.

As do I with yours.

Oh, there is no doubt that science and technological advancements have been made in the last half century; but the rate of advancement has measurably slowed down considerably. While we did get to the Moon, you will also note that the last of the Space Shuttles are about to end thier era of flight. While we invented the Computer Mouse, we don't actually make the mouse, or the computer in most cases. You cannot find a US made TV any more. And while Jim Barton and Mike Ramsay are responsible for the DVR, you don't see those being made on mass in the US. In fact, while you can point to many US contributions the US has made in the early part of the last half century, you will not find many of those items in you home that are made in the US. All of this changes the landscape for job opportunities in the future and employment revenues that power the economy.

Yes, the Space Shuttle program is ending, but the replacement is already being built..(with some delays for sure)...if you look at the main exports of the United States, you will find plastics, semiconductors, aircraft, industrial equipment etc.

While we all want to lament the the loss of manufacturing jobs, I think we have maintained a good position in advanced technological manufacturing. Additionally, I would argue that even with other manufacturing, we might not make as much here as before, but we continually come up with the ideas for what is made.

Ultimately, I view it as simply a specialization of resources, which benefits the entire global marketplace.

This will be the first time, since WWII, that a generation will grow-up to an expectation of a standard of living less than the previous generation.

True, but I think a higher standard can be achieved for those who go out and work for it.

The global economy is what it is. We cannot control that, but we want to be part of it.

It is important to be fully engaged with in each aspect of that “global economy;” complete with production facilities (industrialization), scientific achievements (education and research), innovative developments in the exploitation of new technologies.

We cannot become a country that is merely service oriented. That will be our death.

I agree, if we turn into a completely service economy we will have our problems, but I don't think we are really as far down that path as people argue.

Politics "always" factors in to the equation --- but, usually to our detriment.

Whether you talk about the "tax code" or the way that congress "takes care of its own," --- "energy policy" or the "military conflicts," the decision making processes have not worked-out well for America.

Is it the system that is producing poor results or the people currently running the system?

We are not a "superpower." (That is old school talk.)

While the military can accomplish many of the tasks we set before it, it is no longer "Persuasive in Peace – and Invincible in War.”


It is not a matter of our Military Force itself, but the way in which the Leadership maintains it; and employs it. You simply cannot say, that just because we have an offensive nuclear capability, that rivals all others, that we are a "Superpower." You can win every battle and still lose politically. We've learned that in Vietnam, we are learning this in Iraq, and we are about to learn it again in Afghanistan.

I agree there are limits on a superpower, but having limits does not mean we are no longer a superpower. Our military and economic might remains unmatched. We may be a falling superpower, but a superpower none the less.

But BEYOND military force, to be a "superpower" has a greater meaning, a meaning that encompasses our economic power, our industrial strength and our scientific accomplishments (and maybe much more).


We don't have to "take charge" to be a leader, we don't have to be evangelistic to have followers. If we are doing it right, they will look to America naturally.

I think most places in the world still do....you would disagree?

Yes! I'm a Babyboomer. And maybe my line of thinking is "dated."

If advocating for a:

  • Strong and modern infrastructure; a power grid that won’t collapse the whole NE Coast (and parts of Canada) when a Reactor goes off-line in Ohio, a highway system free of pot holes, a railway system that works,
  • Progressive and affordable education system that graduates Engineers, Doctors, and Scientists that will build a stronger America,
  • Industrial, Commercial and Economic environment that will employ our Engineers, Doctors and Scientist,
  • Path to an new age of enlightenment, where America is the Center of Learning, building the new halls of information, pathways of development,
If all that is defined as being "dated mentality," THEN, (regretably) I am; no question about it. I defer to your better judgement.

I think most people can agree we need a reliable power grid, good schools etc, I think we might just disagree on how best to achieve that.


But I have, and always will, be in defense of the nations right to be first, not just militarily (even though I am retired military), economically, industrially, scientifically and the commercially.

IMO, a Political Entities are akin to Snake Oil Salesmen. They will tell you anything to gain your support. But leave it to Hollywood to make it memorable:


Most Respectfully,
R
(AKA: Old School)

I agree...let us hope we can turn things around sooner rather than later.
 
Back
Top