# Common Sense Budget Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2006, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802 "2006-03-10T06:48:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/41 "2006-03-10T21:51:43Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > Really? Did I miss the clause in the Constitution that authorizes the government to collect labor statistics? Did I also miss the clause that says we base one of our houses of Congress on those statistics? If I did, please point it out. Double :rolleyes: . News flash: The U.S. Constitution is **not** the first and last word on what is or is not a legitimate government function. It’s not even a word anywhere in the middle. (Remember, when you frame the debate in those terms, as you have, you are speaking of the scope of legitimate functions of **all** government – national, state and local.) The Founders did not know/think of everything, and the Census is an essential government function for many reasons that would never have occurred to them. And so is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The concept of labor statistics hardly existed in 1787. But in the modern world, our public decisionmakers need a **lot** more reliable information than they did then. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/42 "2006-03-10T21:57:16Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > It’s a constitutional protection that people have the right to lobby. No, it isn’t, **Renob.** BTW, check out this new thread – “Correlation between education funding and performance?” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=362355](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=362355) ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/43 "2006-03-10T22:00:09Z")
**Brain** , you claimed that collecting labor statistics is a government function in the same way the Census is. Since the Census is explicitly authorized by the Constitution and we base our House of Representatives on it, I think my point about the Constitution is completely valid. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/44 "2006-03-10T22:02:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, it isn’t, **Renob.** The right to petition for a redress of grievances. That’s 18th century-speak for lobbying. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/45 "2006-03-10T22:07:14Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > **Brain** , you claimed that collecting labor statistics is a government function in the same way the Census is. Since the Census is explicitly authorized by the Constitution and we base our House of Representatives on it, I think my point about the Constitution is completely valid. You misconstrued my point. It is almost irrelevant that the Census is explicitly authorized by the Constitution. What matters is, we **need** a Census, and taking a census is something no reasonable person would characterize as “not a legitimate government function.” And the same with collection of labor statistics, or economic information and statistics of any kind. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/46 "2006-03-10T22:10:43Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > The right to petition for a redress of grievances. That’s 18th century-speak for lobbying. No it isn’t **Renob.** Keeping a paid staff of professional political consultants (and/or former officeholders) in the capital full-time for the express purpose of collaring/entertaining/influencing legislators? No, I don’t think that has any slightest thing to do with what the drafters of the 1st Amendment in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/47 "2006-03-10T22:15:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You misconstrued my point. It is almost irrelevant that the Census is explicitly authorized by the Constitution. What matters is, we **need** a Census, and taking a census is something no reasonable person would characterize as “not a legitimate government function.” And the same with collection of labor statistics, or economic information and statistics of any kind. So you are saying I’m not a “reasonable person”? Obviously if it were so cut-and-dried, then we wouldn’t be having this debate, would we? I can think of no legitimate need for the government to collect statistical information, except for the composition of the House of Representatives. > [@](#): > > No it isn’t Renob. Keeping a paid staff of professional political consultants (and/or former officeholders) in the capital full-time for the express purpose of collaring/entertaining/influencing legislators? No, I don’t think that has any slightest thing to do with what the drafters of the 1st Amendment in mind. Yes, it does. Since the average citizen cannot be in DC full-time, it makes sense for him/her to pay someone to be there to look after his/her interests. It’s simply a more advanced way to petition for a redress of grievances. The problem nowadays is that goverment has much more power than it did then, so there is more money to be made from lobbying government. The growth of all these agencies is why we have a lobbying crisis. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/48 "2006-03-10T22:17:19Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > Meanwhile, back in the real world… > > Increasing educational spending is arguably a good idea. Cutting military spending is arguably a good idea. But linking the two together is nothing but political propaganda. Um, why exactly? If we want to increase education spending, and we want to cut military spending, why _not_ do both at once? Doesn’t it make more sense to say “We’re going to get the money to spend on education from X,” rather then “Let’s spend more money on education! How are we gonna pay for it? That’s what _deficits_ are for!” More seriously, I think the idea is that if you just propose a big spending bill for education and other social causes, it probably won’t pass. But if you show people the money is already in the budget, arguably going to waste . . . well, it probably won’t pass anyway, but I think it makes a stronger case. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/49 "2006-03-10T22:31:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The Founders did not know/think of everything, and the Census is an essential government function for many reasons that would never have occurred to them. And so is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So what are these reasons? Labor statistics are not gathered from door to door surveys, like the national census. They’re not vital to a government function, like apportionment in the House. I dispute that we actually “need” labor statistics in any meaningful way, but even if we do, the government isn’t tasked with satisfying all of our “needs.” We need food, but the provision of food to citizens isn’t a government function. Why is tracking the labor market more governmental in nature than tracking the stock market? See, e.g., S&P 500, Russell 2000, etc. Why is the gathering of information about the labor market more governmental than gathering information about the mood of consumers and the electorate? See, e.g., Gallup, Zogby, etc. Why are labor statistics an essential _government_ function? Why can’t it be performed by private entities? In fact, isn’t the function also performed by private entities? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/50 "2006-03-10T23:17:35Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > So basically, it’s impossible for the federal government to do anything successfully. Hell, why don’t we just disband it altogether? Believe it or not, there are actual people who have been helped by federal programs before. I don’t have the energy to look up cites right now (perhaps someone else can help out?), but how about an appeal to logic: Do you really think federal social programs would still exist if none of them were ever successful? This money, while just a fairly small percentage of the defense budget, would be an enormous shot in the arm to these other programs. No, its not impossible for the government to do ANYTHING successful. It does quite a bit successfully…if not optimally efficiently. You don’t seem to get the point I was making. Essentially you (and others who support this) wish to take the money (supposedly) being inefficiently used in defense and put it into a series of equally (or IMHO more) inefficient social programs. I don’t see how $60 billion would be ‘an enormous shot in the arm’ to the programs mentioned…THEIR budget is quite a bit more than that. Not to mention the fact that they ALREADY have very large budgets and aren’t really giving us a good return on our collective investment…which I have to say our military IS, for all its inefficiencies. > [@tim314](#): > > But, eh, I guess thinking the government actually has the power to help people is just a pipe dream . . . Oh, it has the power to help people alright. I’m not denying that. Its just not the optimal INSTRUMENT to help in all cases…nor do I see it as the reason to have a government. I don’t want the government to HELP me, except in emergencies or in the case of foreign invasion etc. Thats not what I see as the proper role for the government. Obviously YMMV but understand that not everyone sees it that way…so in future keep the sarcasm to a minimum. 😉 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/51 "2006-03-11T03:48:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Um, why exactly? If we want to increase education spending, and we want to cut military spending, why not do both at once? Doesn’t it make more sense to say “We’re going to get the money to spend on education from X,” rather then “Let’s spend more money on education! How are we gonna pay for it? That’s what deficits are for!” > > More seriously, I think the idea is that if you just propose a big spending bill for education and other social causes, it probably won’t pass. But if you show people the money is already in the budget, arguably going to waste . . . well, it probably won’t pass anyway, but I think it makes a stronger case. Because by linking two seperate ideas together, you make it twice as difficult to get the bill enacted. There might be pro-defense congressmen who would have voted for an education bill but won’t support a cut in military spending. There might be budget hawk congressmen who would have voted to cut military spending but wouldn’t support seeing the money just get redistributed to another program. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/52 "2006-03-11T17:11:28Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > You don’t seem to get the point I was making. Essentially you (and others who support this) wish to take the money (supposedly) being inefficiently used in defense and put it into a series of equally (or IMHO more) inefficient social programs. I don’t see how $60 billion would be ‘an enormous shot in the arm’ to the programs mentioned…THEIR budget is quite a bit more than that. Not to mention the fact that they ALREADY have very large budgets and aren’t really giving us a good return on our collective investment…which I have to say our military IS, for all its inefficiencies.-XT Actually, their budget _isn’t_ quite a bit more than that. $60 billion dollars is an enormous amount of money for pretty much any federal program _except_ the military. Only the military (with its $442 billion budget) is so massive that it could conceivably waste $60 billion dollars. Lets break that money down. According to the page I linked to in the OP, the federal government currently spends $49 billion on children’s healthcare. The bill would increase that funding by $10 billion, or 20.4%. According to that same page, the federal government spends $39 billion on K-12 education. The bill would increase that funding by $10 billion, or 25.6%. It would increase humanitarian foreign aid funding from $10 billion to $23 billion, an increase of 130%. IT would increase funding for job training programs from $7 billion to $12 billion, an increase of 71.4%. It would increase funding for the effort to increase our energy efficiency, develop renewable energy alternatives and reduce our dependence on foreign oil from $2 billion to $12 billion, an increase of 500%. I’m not sure what our current budget for homeland security is, but $5 billion dollars extra is nothing to sneeze at. Nor is an extra $2 billion for medical research. Nor $5 billion for deficit reduction. Even if you argue that these programs are very inefficient (which I don’t think is true, at least not for _all_ of them, and I’ve seen no cites to back up that claim), to suggest that such _massive_ increases in funding wouldn’t bring about meaningful improvement is ludicrous. The fact that you’re comparing these programs with their less than $50 billion dollar budgets to the military with its $442 billion budget and saying the military is the only one that gives a good return on investment is ridiculous. Could it possibly be that the military is _overfunded_, and these other programs are _underfunded_? Maybe the reason they don’t seem to be as effectual is that their funding is spread far too thin, whereas the military can afford to waste $60 billion dollars on programs that have little to do with its current global objectives. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/53 "2006-03-11T17:17:35Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > Because by linking two seperate ideas together, you make it twice as difficult to get the bill enacted. There might be pro-defense congressmen who would have voted for an education bill but won’t support a cut in military spending. There might be budget hawk congressmen who would have voted to cut military spending but wouldn’t support seeing the money just get redistributed to another program. If you think that a bunch of Congressmen could just get up and ask for $60 billion dollars for some programs they consider important, and expect to get it, then you must have no idea how much money $60 billion dollars is. The _only_ way they could hope to increase funding for these programs by that great an amount is by showing that that funding could come from somewhere where it isn’t currently being put to good use. I admit it’s an enormous longshot given the attitude of the Republican party leadership that currently controls both the Congress and the Presidency. But they would have _zero_ chance if they were to just ask for $60 billion. At least this way, the idea that some of this military funding could be reallocated to other programs without hurting national security is on the table. Even if it fails, I could see it coming up again in a couple years if the Dems regain power. ---
**Author:** ![David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_God_of_Frogs)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/54 "2006-03-11T17:22:24Z")
> [@renob](#): > > NAEP Scores are basically flat since 1971: [http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcar…4/2004\_sdts.asp](http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/2004_sdts.asp) > > I’ve already proven that per-pupil spending has doubled. Basically, spending has doubled and scores remain flat. Do you have any stats on private school attendance? It could be that all of the good students have simply been siphoned away during that time. > [@](#): > > Same with academic institutions. The people benefiting from them should pay for them. You mean little kids? Where do you think they’re going to get that kind of money? > [@the constitution](#): > > the right to petition for a redress of grievances This is getting a bit off topic, but the right to petition the government is seperate from the right to pay other people to petition the government. In fact, you could even say it contradicts that right: if someone pays you to petition the government on behalf of a certain entity, does that take away your (constitutionally protected) right to petition against that entity? > [@renob](#): > > Yes, it does. Since the average citizen cannot be in DC full-time, it makes sense for him/her to pay someone to be there to look after his/her interests. Which is why they invented the telephone… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/55 "2006-03-12T01:14:10Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > I can think of no legitimate need for the government to collect statistical information, except for the composition of the House of Representatives. Perhaps **you** can’t, but since **every government on Earth** performs this function, and a lot of the other functions you condemn if it can afford them, there seem to be a whole lot of highly sophisticated people from widely different cultures who can think of reasons you can’t. > [@Renob](#): > > Since the average citizen cannot be in DC full-time, it makes sense for him/her to pay someone to be there to look after his/her interests. What makes you think DC lobbyists work for “average citizens”?! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/56 "2006-03-12T18:36:01Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Why are labor statistics an essential _government_ function? Why can’t it be performed by private entities? In fact, isn’t the function also performed by private entities? If it is, so much the better. Different perspectives provide a check, reveal if anyone is making a mistake. But I wouldn’t our Congresscritters to be relying **entirely** on, say, labor statistics collected by Standard & Poor, or the National Association of Manufacturers. For obvious reasons. To say labor statistics are not an essential government function is as much as to say it is none of the government’s business or concern what the jobless rate is, or how many people are working in what industries or occupational sectors; and if you wanted to defend **that** position, you definitely would not be part of the reality-based community. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/57 "2006-03-14T02:01:58Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Public school isn’t free where you live? NOPE! I pay taxes for it. 🙂 I must admit, I was surprised to hear that there are 50 federal schools in the US. I didn’t think there were any. Every military person I have ever met (who is a parent) has their kids in either public or private schools. Impact Aid may or may not be a good thing. Certainly it helps those districts that receive it. But to argue that children of military personnel don’t go to existing non-federal schools seems silly to me. It certainly isn’t the case with anyone I know in the military. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/58 "2006-03-14T02:07:23Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > NAEP Scores are basically flat since 1971:[http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/2004\_sdts.asp](http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/2004_sdts.asp) > > I’ve already proven that per-pupil spending has doubled. Basically, spending has doubled and scores remain flat. > > On the cite for the wastefulnes of the government programs listed (and many not listed), their very existence is a waste of money. They are doing things the government has no business doing. I’m not arguing they are inefficient; I’m arguing they are unnecessary. I don’t believe the real evidence exists to determine whether funding has any effect on education. It seems obvious to me but I could be wrong. I would like to ask one question about this post: what evidence exists that the doubling of spending on education didn’t prevent a decline in test scores? Perhaps education responds to the market just like any over economic activity-and the market is only willing to pay for the status quo. Which it got, according to your statement. Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![WillMagic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@WillMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillMagic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/59 "2006-03-14T02:22:33Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > [This bill](http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/csba/) sure sounds great to me! Short version: It would take $60 billion from the $442 billion defense budget, all from programs that are arguably obsolete. It would spend the money on things like public education, child health plans, homeland security, greater energy independence, deficit reduction, etc. > > Does it have the slightest chance of passing? > > And for those who oppose it, why? It needs tweaking. Here are the tweaks I propose: Instead of taking $60 billion from the defense budget, take $441 billion. And then, instead of throwing that money down into the black holes of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy and the Department of Homeland Security…how about just (shocking idea coming) not spending it. How about they just give the money back in the form of tax cuts. That’s a plan I could get behind. Will ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802/60 "2006-03-14T03:10:41Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > It needs tweaking. Here are the tweaks I propose: > > Instead of taking $60 billion from the defense budget, take $441 billion. > > And then, instead of throwing that money down into the black holes of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy and the Department of Homeland Security…how about just (shocking idea coming) not spending it. How about they just give the money back in the form of tax cuts. > > That’s a plan I could get behind. > > Will That would leave the wealth undistributed. Therefore, it is a plan worse than no plan at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-budget-act/347802.md?page=4)