Would you support this law?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Some things would. If they were really crucial. As for the rest? Oh well...

Liberals think nothing is crucial.

 

[candycorn]

Every program in the Fed Govt has to be looked at freshly at least once every four years to determine if it is still needed

Every Program...Every 4 years? No Probably not. For one thing, the analysis (if done properly) will take about half that long. I never figured out (while growing up in Houston) why we had Ellington Field. What was it protecting Houston from? An invasion from Mexico? And if it was, why did we have Kingsville Naval Air Station and Corpus Christi NAS... Not to mention whatever installations are down in McAllen. So do we close them? If so, what do we do with the assets? Get rid of them? Move them to another base? What is the costs of housing whatever assets are being moved into the new digs? These aren't easy questions to answer.

I'd say every 10 years, we should do what someone once called, "Zero Based Budgeting." You don't get your budget from last year with 3-5% added. You have to justify every penny. And when the expenditure gets over a certain amount (lets call it $10M), congress has to vote on that expenditure by itself. Nothing will likely get cut but the Congress will have to authorize every expenditure--the 147th Fighter Wing, the Smithsonian, DEA, NEA, etc... No "omnibus" spending bills that are thousands of pages and fund everything from a parkway to a NASA satellite. I'd like to see that installed for daily business in Congress too by the way.

Anyway, 10 years is where I come down.

 

[Winco]

HaHaHa, you live in a glass house yourself, Winnie. Sounds like one of your racist Olympia school districts got their bigoted BIPOC Only safe spot shut down. No discrimination or segregation. Must break your heart.

Just rambling. ^^^^^^
I have no idea what you speak of.
BICOP, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.
Care to help me understand my so-called problem?

 

[Winco]

Liberals think nothing is crucial.

Everybody KNOWS.......
That Admiral Rockwell Tory is a Shill for:

1). Defending POS trump, he may claim otherwise, but FACT is, he HATES Liberals.
2). Defending Education, unless he determines that the 'questioner' is a liberal.
3). Defends the Military.........Yes, Horray......Geat job. I love My Military. Even Tory.
4). Thinks Humans like ME deserve his Attacks, when in reality, I do MORE. Hurts>

 

[Grumblenuts]

True. Notice that the sharpest increases were when congressional democrats controlled the purse strings. Hmmmm.

Nope. They're all infinitely "sharp", i.e. horizontal to vertical slope changes. That was the supposed point of having a "ceiling" -- Making it difficult to raise both the debt and the "debt ceiling" -- Yet "both sides" of our corporate duopoly have done it regularly.. Both major Parties.. Presidents and Congress critters alike.. As though there really were no point to it to begin with.. Like it was some cynical, sick joke being perpetrated upon the voting public all along.. Who first insisted upon doing that to the People?.. Oh, that's right.. More than anyone, it was Gingrich, during his Assault Upon America..

Prior to the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the debt ceiling played an important role since Congress had few opportunities to hold hearings and debates on the budget.[10] James Surowiecki argued that the debt ceiling lost its usefulness after these reforms to the budget process.[11]

In 1979, noting the potential problems of hitting a default, Dick Gephardt imposed the "Gephardt Rule," a parliamentary rule that deemed the debt ceiling raised when a budget was passed. This resolved the contradiction in voting for appropriations but not voting to fund them. The rule stood until it was repealed by Congress in 1995.

Which ended up just increasing the debt further, requiring more raising of the "Debt Ceiling"..

The ceiling was eventually increased and the government shutdown resolved.

The GAO estimated that the delay in raising the debt ceiling raised borrowing costs for the government by $1.3 billion in 2011 and noted that the delay would also raise costs in later years. The Bipartisan Policy Center extended the GAO's estimates and found that the delay raised borrowing costs by $18.9 billion over ten years.

Now.. Working so hard to deflect from the explicit, boldly stated point? (Being it really doesn't matter, "Both sides do it!".. and shall continue doing it regardless).. That I can't help but notice.

Which is why you make it as hard as possible for them to keep these government programs going.

Not all "government programs" are equal or bad, silly. Governments continue to exist because the People naturally demand what they provide.. "third party" coordination of required public protections and services. Without governments we'd all have been toast long before we were born. The nonexistence of governments and "government programs" has never been a serious option. Never will be. High time you got used to having them around.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Missed the reality of your claim?
When was the last time this was done?

You are going to be so embarrassed this morning when you sober up and read your drunk post.

I never claimed it was done, I asked if people would support it being done.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Every program in the Fed Govt has to be looked at freshly at least once every four years to determine if it is still needed

You want to pay for that? Do you realize how much that would cost?

And why?
Surely if something works, it should stay, if not, it should go. That's why you have POLITICIANS. Well, in theory. But seeing how people seem to vote for their politicians based on who says the fucking most ridiculous shit these days..... the whole system doesn't work.

How about changing the voting system to Proportional Representation? Or has the US gone so dumb that even voting is pointless these days?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Surely if something works, it should stay, if not, it should go.

That is the point, we do not know if something is working or not.

That's why you have POLITICIANS. Well, in theory. But seeing how people seem to vote for their politicians based on who says the fucking most ridiculous shit these days..... the whole system doesn't work.

Very true

How about changing the voting system to Proportional Representation? Or has the US gone so dumb that even voting is pointless these days?

I would support that. The winner take all system is driving us over the cliff.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That is the point, we do not know if something is working or not.



Very true



I would support that. The winner take all system is driving us over the cliff.

If you don't know whether something is working or not, then there's a massive problem in the first place.

A) You pay politicians to do WHAT? Seems like you pay them to strut around like peacocks, with emphasis on the last four letters.

B) Voters should be INFORMED.
Essentially lazy voters who can't be bothered to figure things out (I mean, take a look at the state of this forum, people who actually go to the effort to talk about politics and even most of them seem incapable of using a search engine for anything but porn) voting in lazy politicians.
I think right now the US is half way down the cliff.... too late to stop the inevitable crash. Corruption is too much, the rich control everything and they're all out to make as much money any way they choose as possible.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes. Rick Scott

Mike Lee

Many other Republicans

They have admitted it

Rick Scott just wants to sunset all federal legislation to sunset every 5 years to curb government spending. He never actually suggested cuts to SS.

Mike lee did, at one time suggest phasing out SS, but has since walked that back and said that he would like to see about people being able to take part of their SS and privatize it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Every program in the Fed Govt has to be looked at freshly at least once every four years to determine if it is still needed

Better yet:
Every law expires at the end of the congress that enacted it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Better yet:
Every law expires at the end of the congress that enacted it.

If that was the case then Jan 1st every two years there would not be one single Fed law on the books.

That does not seem a good plan.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If that was the case then Jan 1st every two years there would not be one single Fed law on the books.
That does not seem a good plan.

It ensures Congress only enacts laws that are of absolute, critical importance.
It ensures Congress actually works 5-6 says week, rather than 3.
It ensure only people willing to do that work make it to Congress.
That sounds like a good plan.

 

[bripat9643]

How about we just get back to what is called for in the Constitution?

The Constitution is what got us here.

 

[Couchpotato]

Better yet:
Every law expires at the end of the congress that enacted it.

If that was the case then Jan 1st every two years there would not be one single Fed law on the books.

That does not seem a good plan.

The timeframe can be debated. Getting the Congress to consider enacting a law of this nature regardless of the time frame for review/renewal will be the bigger hurdle.

 

[Couchpotato]

If you don't know whether something is working or not, then there's a massive problem in the first place.

You dont think there are any number of Government programs that are structurally broken and Congress knows it but doesn't fix them? Really?

 

[Pellinore]

No.

The Code of Laws is enormous. Of course, no one expects to look at every law passed, they just want a reason to re-argue the ones they don't like, over and over and over until they get their way.

 

[dblack]

I would support that. The winner take all system is driving us over the cliff.

Going to ranked choice voting would help a lot as well. But as long as the two major parties benefit from the existing dysfunction, and, most especially, as long as voters are too stupid to see past the lesser-of-two-evils idiocy, it ain't gonna change.

 

[Couchpotato]

No.

The Code of Laws is enormous. Of course, no one expects to look at every law passed, they just want a reason to re-argue the ones they don't like, over and over and over until they get their way.

OP isnt saying every law. Every program

 

[Couchpotato]

Going to ranked choice voting would help a lot as well. But as long as the two major parties benefit from the existing dysfunction, and, most especially, as long as voters are too stupid to see past the lesser-of-two-evils idiocy, it ain't gonna change.

I have read good and bad on the ranked choice voting.