What to cut: The Federal Budget

[Dr.Traveler]

Cecille I'll bite.

What's your opinion on the Constitutionality of the NSA, FBI, and CIA? How about the Louisiana Purchase?

I personally find them dubious. It definitely seems like an implied power, but I think if we're looking for strict Constitutional guidelines all 3 of the agencies listed would have to have been set up as a section of the Army or Navy as Army or Navy intelligence (as in some cases they actually were prior to the Cold War). Making them an independent operation is IMHO as questionable as the Welfare clause.

Well, the FBI is part of the Department of Justice, which is about investigating and enforcing federal law inside the United States. The Constitution does give Congress the power to make laws "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." It seems logical, and necessary and proper, that if you're going to have federal criminal laws, you're going to have to have a federal law enforcement body to execute those laws. But no, the FBI obviously isn't mentioned directly in the Constitution.

It gets even more complicated when you consider that the FBI was formed under a very Progressive administration, which favored a more expansive federal government than existed at the time. Mind you, I think Teddy Roosevelt would have shit his pants if he'd seen the extent to which the federal government has been expanded since then.

Foreign intelligence gathering is on even shakier ground Constitutionally, since our Founding Fathers apparently didn't spend a whole lot of time thinking about the need to have a lot to do with other countries beyond sending them ambassadors and making treaties. Not surprising, when they lived in a world where other countries, aside from Canada and Mexico, were months away by ship.

While I would say that foreign intelligence gathering is certainly a proper and appropriate function for the federal government, that's not the same as saying it's actually covered in the Constitution, and I for one would feel better if the necessity had been covered by an Amendment, rather than simply being popped into existence.

As to the Louisiana Purchase, it was apparently presented to Congress as a treaty, which the Constitution certainly gives the President the right to negotiate and Congress the right to ratify. In addition, although it was a land purchase and that might not have been what the Founding Fathers exactly had in mind when they thought of treaties, it WAS an arrangement made for the sake of national security, because Napoleon wasn't the most stable of human beings and not exactly the sort of neighbor one wants, so I would say I consider it appropriate under those circumstances.

Thank you very much for ASKING.

Thanks for answering.

I think we read these situations in a pretty similar way. My point was, and I think you're closer to agreeing with me than first appeared, is that there are some implied powers in the Constitution. Stuff that certainly makes sense when the Constitution is applied to situations not explicitly spelled out, but again, stuff that isn't explicitly spelled out.

For an additional example, take Judicial Review. I see that as a completely logical consequence of how the legal system works, alongside the fact that the Constitution fails to explicitly spell out a mechanism for countering Unconstitutional laws at the Federal Level. Surely the Founders weren't so naive as to think Unconstitutional laws would never be passed, but they sure seemed to not address that in the Constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecille I'll bite.

What's your opinion on the Constitutionality of the NSA, FBI, and CIA? How about the Louisiana Purchase?

I personally find them dubious. It definitely seems like an implied power, but I think if we're looking for strict Constitutional guidelines all 3 of the agencies listed would have to have been set up as a section of the Army or Navy as Army or Navy intelligence (as in some cases they actually were prior to the Cold War). Making them an independent operation is IMHO as questionable as the Welfare clause.

Well, the FBI is part of the Department of Justice, which is about investigating and enforcing federal law inside the United States. The Constitution does give Congress the power to make laws "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." It seems logical, and necessary and proper, that if you're going to have federal criminal laws, you're going to have to have a federal law enforcement body to execute those laws. But no, the FBI obviously isn't mentioned directly in the Constitution.

It gets even more complicated when you consider that the FBI was formed under a very Progressive administration, which favored a more expansive federal government than existed at the time. Mind you, I think Teddy Roosevelt would have shit his pants if he'd seen the extent to which the federal government has been expanded since then.

Foreign intelligence gathering is on even shakier ground Constitutionally, since our Founding Fathers apparently didn't spend a whole lot of time thinking about the need to have a lot to do with other countries beyond sending them ambassadors and making treaties. Not surprising, when they lived in a world where other countries, aside from Canada and Mexico, were months away by ship.

While I would say that foreign intelligence gathering is certainly a proper and appropriate function for the federal government, that's not the same as saying it's actually covered in the Constitution, and I for one would feel better if the necessity had been covered by an Amendment, rather than simply being popped into existence.

As to the Louisiana Purchase, it was apparently presented to Congress as a treaty, which the Constitution certainly gives the President the right to negotiate and Congress the right to ratify. In addition, although it was a land purchase and that might not have been what the Founding Fathers exactly had in mind when they thought of treaties, it WAS an arrangement made for the sake of national security, because Napoleon wasn't the most stable of human beings and not exactly the sort of neighbor one wants, so I would say I consider it appropriate under those circumstances.

Thank you very much for ASKING.

Thanks for answering.

I think we read these situations in a pretty similar way. My point was, and I think you're closer to agreeing with me than first appeared, is that there are some implied powers in the Constitution. Stuff that certainly makes sense when the Constitution is applied to situations not explicitly spelled out, but again, stuff that isn't explicitly spelled out.

For an additional example, take Judicial Review. I see that as a completely logical consequence of how the legal system works, alongside the fact that the Constitution fails to explicitly spell out a mechanism for countering Unconstitutional laws at the Federal Level. Surely the Founders weren't so naive as to think Unconstitutional laws would never be passed, but they sure seemed to not address that in the Constitution.

I don't see the current practice of the courts taking it upon themselves to review and oversee the work of the legislative branch as being at all logical OR in keeping with the Constitution, let alone the utterly outrageous practice of courts ORDERING legislatures to change the law to suit the court's specifications. Talk about Unconstitutional!

I suspect, given what IS in the Constitution, that the courts were intended to simply decide individual cases brought to them according to the prevailing law. If the lower law contradicts, say, the Constitution, then the case is decided according to the Constitution. That's fine. But I think it's inappropriate for the courts to "strike down" laws, or issue decisions declaring a law Unconstitutional. That moves from adjudicating cases to judging legislative output. And I flatly disagree with the practice of directly asking courts to rule on laws without any judicial case at all, as in the case of the federal government suing the state of Arizona over SB 1070.

 

[Big Fitz]

What to cut? If I can outright cancel, repeal, shut down and fire every program created after 2000, this is what I'd do.

1. All subsidies. Cut 100%. (corporate, agricultural, individual, foreign aid, military aid)

2. All social programs. 40% cut. (welfare, Medicare/aid, SocSec, Education)

3. All Essential government services. 20% (law enforcement, courts, FEMA)

4. All Military and government bureaucratic employees. 15% plus close all 'peacetime' foreign bases permanently (European bases, Japan)

5. Stop payment on all 'overbudget' government projects to private contractors.

6. Freeze budget at 2006 level for the next 10 years.

Incredibly hard cuts like this will HAVE to be made. The percentage and severity just keeps rising the longer we wait. I suppose I could be happy with a 35% universal cut and 10 year freeze if I had to, but it hurts essential and constitutional departments of the government more than I'd like while letting some of the waste and unconstitutional things slide.

 

[Trajan]

It is not "uses of enumerated powers not enumerated", since the Constitution doesn't go into lists of occasions and situations for the use of ANY of the powers.

Exactly! Which is precisely why "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" has such wide application, extending beyond the ink on the page.

As I've said for several posts now, we don't disagree on this.

and mandates...were do we stand on that again?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is not "uses of enumerated powers not enumerated", since the Constitution doesn't go into lists of occasions and situations for the use of ANY of the powers.

Exactly! Which is precisely why "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" has such wide application, extending beyond the ink on the page.

As I've said for several posts now, we don't disagree on this.

and mandates...were do we stand on that again?

Mandates . . . in what sense of the word?

 

[The Rabbi]

Creating a net -670,000 private sector jobs over an eight year period, leaving office with 780K jobs per month and 7% of GDP per year being lost is the "second best economy post war"?

I didn't know if I should responf to you or the Rabbi, but You win!

We have a number of people who are in charge of a number of departments in government. Presumably, they understand what they are trying to do and how to do it.

Cut the whole Federal Budget 10% and try mightily to not pass anther Failed Stimulus Bill.

What to cut? Leave it up to the department heads. If the Executive, this includes the Big 0, do not agree with the cuts, he will need to step in and straighten them out. This will require a guy wearing his Big Boy Pants like Chistie in New Jersey or "My Man Mitch" in Indiana.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that indicates that the Big 0 has the ability, the intelligence or the courage to do this. This lack of ability, intelligence and courage will lead to his opponent, no matter who that is, winning in 2012.

It doesn't work that way.
IN the private sector, managers get bonuses and promotions for increasing the profitability of their unit, by increasing sales or increasing efficiency. Thus they have incentives to keep their staff to a minimum.
In gov't managers get paid based on how "important" their unit is, i.e. how many people they serve and how big a staff they need. Thus they have incentive to spread their mandate as widely as possible and employ as many people as possible.
Cut their budgets and make them find efficiencies in their own fiefdom. This is the only way.

 

[Care4all]

got any proof that this is how government managers are paid, Rabbi?

 

[The Rabbi]

got any proof that this is how government managers are paid, Rabbi?

Don't you need to powder your nose, or something?
Do you have proof this is not the case? Remember, gov't is not in the for-profit business, so profitability is not a factor in any business decision.

 

[Trajan]

Exactly! Which is precisely why "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" has such wide application, extending beyond the ink on the page.

As I've said for several posts now, we don't disagree on this.

and mandates...were do we stand on that again?

Mandates . . . in what sense of the word?

as in the sense that a mandate to purchase a good or service is not a tax, then it is.

 

[Old Rocks]

Can you not change the subject when the answer to the question undermines your case?

I didn't change the subject. You said I should look at what happened after the Dems took control of congress. I asked which bills were passed after the Dems took congress that led to the deepest post-war recession starting in December of 2007?

And while you're at it, which legislation after dems took office in January 2007 caused the housing market to begin to crash in May of 2006?

But now I remember our previous discussions, and I have no doubt you'll just duck,weave and namecall instead of facing facts.

You're changing the subject. What happened to the economy between 2001 and 2006?

It sucked, just like the last two Bush years.

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - Ronald Brownstein - Politics - The Atlantic

Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.


Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.


Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.


Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.
Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle.


Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980.


But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent. The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lies, damned lies, statistics, and posts by OldRocksinHead.

 

[Cecilie1200]

and mandates...were do we stand on that again?

Mandates . . . in what sense of the word?

as in the sense that a mandate to purchase a good or service is not a tax, then it is.

I see. So you're asking what I think of the government mandating that people purchase something? Not in favor of it.

Now, I should say that I differentiate between the government saying, "Everyone must purchase health insurance, period", and the government saying, "If you're going to drive on public roads, you must have liability auto insurance." This is because in the second case, you have a choice: don't drive on the public roads.

 

[8537]

Lies, damned lies, statistics, and posts by OldRocksinHead.

and running away from reality like a coward every.fucking.time by Rabbi.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lies, damned lies, statistics, and posts by OldRocksinHead.

Poor Rabid. He doesn't like the numbers for the whole of Bush's two terms. So, let's just go half way, to 2004, before the full effect of the Bush policies began to firestorm the whole economy. That should look much better for ol' Bushie, right?

The Numbers Don't lie. Economy under Bush vs Economy under Clinton

The Numbers Don't lie. Economy under Bush vs Economy under Clinton
Income is in 2004 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars.

Median Household Income Decline under Bush:

Median Household Income in 2004: $44,389
Median Household Income in 2003: $44,482
Median Household Income in 2002: $45,062
Median Household Income in 2001: $46,058


Median Household Income Increase under Clinton:

Median Household Income in 2000: $46,129
Median Household Income in 1999: $45,003
Median Household Income in 1998: $43,430
Median Household Income in 1997: $42,545
Median Household Income in 1996: $41,943
Median Household Income in 1995: $40,677
Median Household Income in 1994: $40,217
Median Household Income in 1993: $40,422

Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf

Employment Rate under Bush:

2001: 4.7%
2002: 5.8%
2003: 6.0%
2004: 5.5%

Employment Rate under Clinton:

1993: 6.9%
1994: 6.1%
1995: 5.6%
1996: 5.4%
1997: 4.9%
1998: 4.5%
1999: 4.2%
2000: 4.0%

Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

Poverty Rate under Bush:
2001: 11.7%
2002: 12.1%
2003: 12.5%
2004: 12.7%

Poverty Rate under Clinton:

1993: 15.1%
1994: 14.5%
1995: 13.8%
1996: 13.7%
1997: 13.3%
1998: 12.7%
1999: 11.9%
2000: 11.3%

 

[Care4all]

got any proof that this is how government managers are paid, Rabbi?

Don't you need to powder your nose, or something?
Do you have proof this is not the case? Remember, gov't is not in the for-profit business, so profitability is not a factor in any business decision.

you said:

In gov't managers get paid based on how "important" their unit is, i.e. how many people they serve and how big a staff they need. Thus they have incentive to spread their mandate as widely as possible and employ as many people as possible.

Now how about giving us some proof of this Bs of yours....or are you gonna run as usual and avoid as usual?

 

[Toro]

got any proof that this is how government managers are paid, Rabbi?

Don't you need to powder your nose, or something?
Do you have proof this is not the case? Remember, gov't is not in the for-profit business, so profitability is not a factor in any business decision.

I've worked in government and business. The first place I worked in government felt like a small business. Hardly any bureaucracy at all. You were paid a bonus if you hit a target. If managers kept costs down, they got a bonus. I've also seen the opposite where managers in business built their own fiefdoms, and as long as they hit their targets, they spent like crazy.

Generally, business is more efficient than government. That's because business is driven by the profit motive. But from the years I spent in government, there is an internal logic to bureaucracy that people who haven't worked in government often don't understand. Its pretty simply, in government you don't get rewarded when you take risks and you get punished if you do. And these incentives often come from outside the government agency because somebody, somewhere thought that he or she didn't get a fair shake at this or that and complained about it, which can lead to political pressure and managers on the firing line. So rules and paperwork are developed and implemented to avoid that one single thing that happened - justified or not - to make sure it never happens again.

The best account I have ever read about government is PJ O'Rourke's "Parliament of Whores." He concludes that government is a fucked up bureaucracy because the people outside the government have made it a fucked up bureaucracy. From what I've seen, that's definitely the case.

 

[loosecannon]

got any proof that this is how government managers are paid, Rabbi?

Don't you need to powder your nose, or something?
Do you have proof this is not the case? Remember, gov't is not in the for-profit business, so profitability is not a factor in any business decision.

I've worked in government and business. The first place I worked in government felt like a small business. Hardly any bureaucracy at all. You were paid a bonus if you hit a target. If managers kept costs down, they got a bonus. I've also seen the opposite where managers in business built their own fiefdoms, and as long as they hit their targets, they spent like crazy.

Generally, business is more efficient than government. That's because business is driven by the profit motive. But from the years I spent in government, there is an internal logic to bureaucracy that people who haven't worked in government often don't understand. Its pretty simply, in government you don't get rewarded when you take risks and you get punished if you do. And these incentives often come from outside the government agency because somebody, somewhere thought that he or she didn't get a fair shake at this or that and complained about it, which can lead to political pressure and managers on the firing line. So rules and paperwork are developed and implemented to avoid that one single thing that happened - justified or not - to make sure it never happens again.

The best account I have ever read about government is PJ O'Rourke's "Parliament of Whores." He concludes that government is a fucked up bureaucracy because the people outside the government have made it a fucked up bureaucracy. From what I've seen, that's definitely the case.

that has to be the best post in an otherwise useless thread.

But medicare still beats private industry for efficiency.

And I bet Chinese bureaucracy is a mite bit more efficient than ours.

The point being that government could be more efficient than private business precisely because it doesn't operate on a profit motive.

But you'd have to do away with job security and the career bureaucrat. Tenure corrupts absolutely. As do labor unions.

 

[The Rabbi]

Mandates . . . in what sense of the word?

as in the sense that a mandate to purchase a good or service is not a tax, then it is.

I see. So you're asking what I think of the government mandating that people purchase something? Not in favor of it.

Now, I should say that I differentiate between the government saying, "Everyone must purchase health insurance, period", and the government saying, "If you're going to drive on public roads, you must have liability auto insurance." This is because in the second case, you have a choice: don't drive on the public roads.

There's a huge difference: Auto insurance is mandated by state governments. This will be mandated by the feds.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lies, damned lies, statistics, and posts by OldRocksinHead.

Poor Rabid. He doesn't like the numbers for the whole of Bush's two terms. So, let's just go half way, to 2004, before the full effect of the Bush policies began to firestorm the whole economy. That should look much better for ol' Bushie, right?

The Numbers Don't lie. Economy under Bush vs Economy under Clinton

The Numbers Don't lie. Economy under Bush vs Economy under Clinton
Income is in 2004 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars.

Median Household Income Decline under Bush:

Median Household Income in 2004: $44,389
Median Household Income in 2003: $44,482
Median Household Income in 2002: $45,062
Median Household Income in 2001: $46,058


Median Household Income Increase under Clinton:

Median Household Income in 2000: $46,129
Median Household Income in 1999: $45,003
Median Household Income in 1998: $43,430
Median Household Income in 1997: $42,545
Median Household Income in 1996: $41,943
Median Household Income in 1995: $40,677
Median Household Income in 1994: $40,217
Median Household Income in 1993: $40,422

Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf

Employment Rate under Bush:

2001: 4.7%
2002: 5.8%
2003: 6.0%
2004: 5.5%

Employment Rate under Clinton:

1993: 6.9%
1994: 6.1%
1995: 5.6%
1996: 5.4%
1997: 4.9%
1998: 4.5%
1999: 4.2%
2000: 4.0%

Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

Poverty Rate under Bush:
2001: 11.7%
2002: 12.1%
2003: 12.5%
2004: 12.7%

Poverty Rate under Clinton:

1993: 15.1%
1994: 14.5%
1995: 13.8%
1996: 13.7%
1997: 13.3%
1998: 12.7%
1999: 11.9%
2000: 11.3%

By 2004 the effects of the Bush tax cuts were just beginning to be felt. And the recession was still lingering in some areas.
FAIL.
btw, what are those same numbers for Team Obama?

 

[Cecilie1200]

as in the sense that a mandate to purchase a good or service is not a tax, then it is.

I see. So you're asking what I think of the government mandating that people purchase something? Not in favor of it.

Now, I should say that I differentiate between the government saying, "Everyone must purchase health insurance, period", and the government saying, "If you're going to drive on public roads, you must have liability auto insurance." This is because in the second case, you have a choice: don't drive on the public roads.

There's a huge difference: Auto insurance is mandated by state governments. This will be mandated by the feds.

On this issue, it really doesn't matter to me which government entity mandates purchasing items and services. I disapprove of the practice generally for all government entities.