Sunset commission

[Ravenman]

The trump card here is Article I of the Constitution, which vests all legislative power in Congress. This proposal is nothing more than a direct assualt on the legislative power.

Nearly every committee of Congress – save for appropriations, budget, and rules – is entirely dedicated to authorizing and conducting oversight over government programs. With the exception of pork projects, in a very narrow manner of speaking, the vast majority of government programs are only authorized for a limited period of time. The highway trust fund has to be reauthorized every five years. The Defense Department has to the reauthorized at least every two years, in practice, its reauthorized every year. State Department programs were reauthorized last in 1994 or so, but since then, they’ve basically been reauthorized through appropriations bills.

What the White House is proposing – you can flip through Analytical Perspectives more if you want more details – turns the Constitution on its head. It strips this oversight and authorizing power of Congress and turns it over to a commission that’s part and parcel of the Executive Branch. (You might note that Clay Johnson seemed particularly enthusiastic about this point in the linked article.)

Yes, as you state, Congress would have the power to “veto” the elimination of programs that the commission doesn’t like, but ask yourself a question: Which branch of government does the Constitution give a veto? The Executive or Legislative Branch?

You can’t seriously say with a straight face that the Founding Fathers ever intended the Executive Branch to do what it wants, unless the Congress votes to stop the President. This cockamamie idea turns the Constitution on its head, and reverses the roles of the Congress and the President. I can’t see how anyone can seriously argue that the Founding Fathers would want the checks and balances of our three branches of government to be upset in such a silly way.

[UncleBeer]

@Ravenman

I challenge you to find any document from OMB, CBO, or Congress that authorizes, appropriates, or provides mandatory funding to “relatively uncontrolled spending” programs. That term is a work of pure fiction.

My apologies. It does look like I’ve stated that the term “relatively uncontrolled spending” appears in the federal budget. I do not truly believe that to be the case, and I’m sorry if that is the impression I’ve given. I meant only to say that that term has been applied to the spending for programs of this nature by others. In the actual budget, these spending items are called “off-budget” spending.

@Ravenman

There are mandatory programs (for which appropriations are never made, such as your Social Security checks), discretionary programs (for which appropriations are required each year), and there are mandatory appropriated accounts (like VA health care, which is a mandatory benefit that uses appropriated funds). Anyone who claims that Congress has no legal ability to alter the authorization or funding for any of these programs is full of shit and doesn’t know what they are talking about. You have apparently swallowed this complete load of crap hook, line and sinker.

You are applying something to my statement which I never claimed. Specifically, “Anyone who claims that Congress has no legal ability to alter the authorization or funding for any of these programs is full of shit and doesn’t know what they are talking about.” I did not say that Congress has no authority to alter allocations for these programs. I said that alterations to previously approved funding for these programs had to done outside the budget approval process. You, however, have strongly implied that every line item in the federal budget is reviewed and approved, or rejected, by Congress annually. That is most certainly at odds with the accepted budget approval process. See the pdf at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/concepts.pdf

In making appropriations, Congress does not vote on the level of outlays (spending) directly, but rather on budget authority, which is the authority provided by law to incur financial obligations that will result in outlays. In a separate process, prior to making appropriations, Congress usually enacts legislation that authorizes an agency to carry out particular programs and, in some cases, limits the amount that can be appropriated for the programs. Some authorizing legislation expires after one year, some expires after a specified number of years, and some is permanent. Congress may enact appropriations for a program even though there is no specific authorization for it.

Note also:

As explained earlier, Congress also provides budget authority in laws other than appropriations acts. In fact, while annual appropriations acts control the spending for the majority of Federal programs, they control only one-third of the total spending in a typical year. Permanent laws, called authorizing legislation, control the rest of the spending. A distinctive feature of these laws is that they provide agencies with the authority to collect or to spend money without first requiring the Appropriations Committees to enact funding.

And:

The budget resolution may contain ‘‘reconciliation directives’’ (discussed below) to the committees responsible for tax laws and for spending not controlled by annual appropriation acts, in order to conform the level of receipts and this type of spending to the levels specified in the budget resolution.

Each of these quotes from the OMB document clearly show that Congress does not consider every line item of every budget every year.

[Ravenman]

Yes. Mandatory, non-appropriated spending is not approved by Congress each year, but it is dealt with broadly by the annual budget resolution. The budget resolution may cut non-appropriated sums by including reconciliation language in the resolution that forces Congress to act to cut money from mandatory programs. This, in fact, is exactly what is happening with respect to Medicaid: the White House wants to cut it, the Senate does not, and thus gridlock. Cite. So the idea that even mandatory funding is not reviewed by Congress (at least in the aggregate) each year, is nonsense.

But here’s the rub: these types of programs which are funded by mandatory processes can hardly be called pork. I don’t think anyone would seriously call Medicare, Social Security, pension benefits for retired workers, or other similar programs, pork. The pork that everyone always gets all riled up about, like the things that Lute Skywatcher cited, are funded through discretionary budgets. Congress has an opportunity each year to eliminate these programs, for which the president does not propose funding, and specifically rejects the President’s cut each year. This commission is nothing more than sour grapes on behalf of an Executive Branch, which is itching to be able to dictate the rules of the game to Congress, rather than relying on the Constitution.

Let me also be clear: this is not a partisan thing for me. All Presidents, of any political party, will try things like this. I believe it’s incredibly important to maintain the checks and balances of our republic by rejecting efforts by any one branch of government to dictate to others how to do its business, whether it is Presidents trying to dilute the legislative power, or Congress trying to force its views down the throat of judges.

[rjung]

@Cheesesteak

I submit that the word “bipartisan” means that this commission will not be chosen directly by the President with no Congressional overview. Congress will also establish the schedule of review, and has the ability to reverse the commission’s decision.

Given that this Administration has given us numerous doubletalk initiatives such as “Healthy Forests” (which increases logging) and “Clean Skies” (which weakens the Clean Air act), I fully expect “bipartisan Congressional review” will end up being a partisan hatchet-job dancing to the strings pulled by the White House.

[Ravenman]

You forgot the bipartisan commission that found that the White House couldn’t be faulted for misleading WMD intelligence, or the bipartisan commission that unanimously recommended privitizing Social Security… funny how White House appointed bipartisan commissions come to the same conclusions as the White House!

[UncleBeer]

Ya know, misappropriating the word “bi-partisan” to a committe name isn’t limited to the Republicans, or even the current regime. Not that I’m trying to defend its use in this instance, but you guys seem to be looking only for Republican examples. E.G., the Brady Act was titled “Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act,” when it had damned little to do with handgun violence. Similarly, the now expired assault weapons ban was titled, “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” when it had not a nothing to do with recreational firearms use.

[Excalibre]

@duffer

Jeez, even us Catholics can adjust a view/stance or two on further review. You left-wing fundies though, (yes liberalism is its own religion) make Phelps look almost reasonable

Excuse me? Not only is liberalism a religion now (pray tell, what deity does it worship? What divine forces do we invoke to justify our views?) but because one of us is unreasonable, we’re all comparable to Fred Phelps? Perhaps you don’t see that as quite as much of an insult as it actually is, because his views are probably a good deal closer to yours than they are to mine. Nevertheless, your comment was both tremendously stupid and completely at odds with any attempt at reasonable debate.

Certain things are everpresent. Death, taxes, and duffer doing his best to make the political debate in our great nation that much worse.

I must say, though, it’s amusing to see the Republicans here scrambling to justify this extreme extension of executive power when out of the other side of their mouths they scream about “activist judges”.

@Cardinal

I suppose the current method is that Congress can introduce bills to cut anything. As a practical matter, though, this is likely to get little support, as it’s hard to make a name for yourself as a stopper of things, even if those things are lame.

Seriously, am I being whooshed here? What legislator (whatever their party affiliation) doesn’t rant and scream about how they’re cutting the fat from government? If you have slept through the last twenty-five years, you might not have noticed that cutting government measures is one of the dominant themes of political discussion in the United States, but rest assured that any legislator would be thrilled to make a name for themself doing that.

Granted, it doesn’t happen in any meaningful sense, but I see no reason to believe a partisan council appointed by the president would do so either.

@duffer

sigh

It doesn’t exist. According to Dopers again and again in those threads it’s “global climate change”. Not warming. That theory was busted out so the nomenclature was changed.

Try again dipshit.

The strange thing about Republicans? Morals are absolute, but the truth is relative. No matter what the scientists may say, if duffer feels differently (or, more likely, is told differently by the also non-scientist leaders of his party) it’s not true.

@duffer

I did respond, dumb-ass. Try to use an extra cell or two to read past the most literal interpretation of my post.

I’d use my favorite insult here, but I have too much repect for douchebags.

In other words, use your imagination and pretend duffer put forth an actual argument to support his recitation of the party line. Because he’ll never actually offer one up.

@Jonathan Chance

Clearly, we’re at a point where programs continue on their own inertia. I think we can all agree on that.

You know, this is one of those pieces of common wisdom that I have never really seen any evidence for. I work for state government, not federal, but I’ve seen the way that budgets get continuously slashed, further and further, to finance tax cuts. I’ve seen the way departments providing essential services are less and less able to provide them (I see that through my mother’s workplace, too, since she’s a social worker trying to protect children in abusive families.)

I think people hear, over and over, that there’s such immense government waste that the country is being torn apart, to the point that they believe it when it’s not proven at all. I certainly think that many government programs are wasteful, but unfortunately, the ones that are truly wasting money are not the ones that will be cut. Every politician likes to take a stand against government waste, and all that has meant is that the real, useful, necessary programs are cut further and further, while the ridiculous, enormous expenditures that are the real problem will never be attacked by this commission.

[rjung]

@UncleBeer

Ya know, misappropriating the word “bi-partisan” to a committe name isn’t limited to the Republicans, or even the current regime.

I don’t recall anyone claiming it was.

[UncleBeer]

Well, no, not explicitly. But those were the only examples being paraded here.

[rjung]

That’s the difference between “current events” and “history.”

[UncleBeer]

True. And I did, as I see the 20/20 vision of hindsight, toss a strawman objection out there. My apologies. Won’t happen again - 'til the next time.

[kaylasdad99]

Is this proposal not just a retooling of the old “line-item veto” that was passed during the '90s, only to be declared unconstitutional the first time the Republican Congress sued President Clinton for using it?

[Squink]

@kaylasdad99

Is this proposal not just a retooling of the old “line-item veto” that was passed during the '90s…

Nuclear powered, with built in political camoflage.

[Typo_Negative]

How so? If it’s only visited after 10 years, AND congress can stop it from being cut…