Meh…narrow it down even more and bring it even closer to home and more granular.
I live in Chicago and can say they are every bit as bad, probably worse, than the folks in Washington at spending my money.
I guess it depends if it’s supposed to be fiscal year or calendar year. I assumed it was calendar year.
But if it is fiscal year, then the chart is indeed correct. The FY 2007 budget was passed in Oct 2006, when the Republicans still had control of congress. It wasn’t until FY 2008 that the Democrats got to pass their first one.
Republicans still got a whole lot of input, though, being a strong minority in both houses of Congress, and the whole having the White House part.
I think power should be left to the states and the people for a simple reason - If you are going to have government power, I’d rather have it be as local as possible because I believe it has a better chance of serving the people better, and also because if you don’t like it, it’s easier to get away from it.
Or put it this way - I will tolerate a significant amount of direction from my local zoning board. They can tell me how wide my eaves have to be, what color and material my fence must be made of, and all sorts of things like that. I tolerate it because it’s relatively easy for me to move out of the neighborhood if I don’t like it. I’ll tolerate somewhat less control from my municipal government, even less from my provincial government, less yet from my federal government, an almost none from a world governing body. Proximity to power and ease of avoiding it are key factors in determining how well we are represented and how much liberty we really have.
State governments can certainly be incompetent, and they can be corrupt. So can municipal governments, and school boards, and even condo associations. And individuals, for that matter. But I suspect that the government of Vermont is more in tune with the needs and wants of its citizens than is Washington. I suspect the municipal government of San Francisco is more likely to meet the desires of the residents of that city than was the Bush Administration.
I also like the fact that if my local government becomes anathema to me, I can pack up and leave a lot easier than I can if the federal government becomes anathema to me. I also like that the greater mobility of voters with respect to state and local governments acts as a real check on government excess. The tyranny of the majority has much less impact if the oppressed minority can pack up and leave.
I seem to recall Americans had a little trouble living under the control of a distant government at one time. The constitution specifically called out for government where power diminishes with distance because the founding fathers recognized the problems that can arise with a ‘one size fits all’ government imposing its will on far-flung people of widely varying disposition.
So, then, if we removed the barriers against people moving from one country to another, that would help clean up government, too, wouldn’t it?
There is another problem with federal government that is somewhat unique to the U.S.'s Republican form of democracy - I think it is less suited to meeting the overall needs of the country than a parliamentary democracy might be. This is something I’m just starting to realize, and it came to me when thinking about pork and earmarks and regulatory capture and other problems that seem to make the U.S. federal government so incompetent.
The problem is this: In a parliamentary democracy, the party in power maintains a certain amount of discipline among its members. Canada, for example, has extremely strong party discipline, and unless there is an explicit ‘free vote’, the party is expected to speak as one voice. Now, I used to think this was a bad thing, because it seemed to limit how well local issues could be represented in the federal government. But it has a big upside in that it protects individual politicians from political damage should they vote in a way that is best for the country but which may harm their own constituents. It also lessens the power of lobbyists, because they do not have the ability to sway individual votes.
Also, because each politician is always voting freely, the budget process becomes a giant fire sale where politicians trade favors with each other to benefit their local constituencies at the expense of the country overall. You want a dairy subsidy, I want a steel tariff. I convince you to vote for my steel tariff, and I’ll vote for your dairy subsidy. Our campaigns both get funded by the dairy lobby AND the steel lobby. Personally, you and I both make out like bandits, politically speaking. But the country would be better off without either of those things.
This is actually a form of ‘government externality’: A government failure akin to a market failure. You and I engaged in a transaction to our mutual benefit - with the cost pushed onto a third party who was not part of the deal.
This is what happens in Washington. Issues of national importance become opportunities for politicians to demand local pork. Small but key constituencies like Cuban immigrants in Florida can hijack foreign policy for the entire country because they happen to be a swing group in a swing state. States that have politicians who sit on important committees have more influence and collect extra benefit from government, leading to even more resource misallocations.
These dynamics make Washington dysfunctional and lead to bad national policy, regardless of which party is in power. All that changes is the nature of the distortions.
Uh, what? Huh? I don’t recall any such, sounds like a penumbra or an emanation some activist judge made up. Besides, it would be little more than an acknowledgment of fact: when it takes two weeks for the Federal gov. to send its message to the ends, it takes two weeks to send its power.
Besides, you guys were just as far away as we were, how come you’re still stuck with crummy beer and stupid sports?
Libertarians are anarchists in denial. Rather than spray-paint "A"symbols on buildings, take drugs and listen to painfully bad music, they wear bow ties.
Most certainly it would. I hope you don’t think I’m someone who opposes immigration, in either my country or the U.S…
To hijack the discussion a bit, it seems to me that the problem that needs to be solved with immigration is the problem of welfare - when you have a situation where your poorest people are net recipients of government benefits, how can you possibly allow unrestricted immigration? That’s a serious issue, but if you can solve it, I’d be for a complete open borders policy. One solution would be to make new immigrants post a bond equal to the cost of a flight home, and to not allow them to collect social benefits for X years after immigrating. If they can’t make a go of it and are destitute, they can cash their transportation bond and go home. If they can find a life and become productive, then great. After X years, they get their bond back with interest and are made full citizens.
I guess some ranking Republicans aren’t too happy with the “outline” either.
From Politico:
That sounds great, except this is what the CBO said in their analysis of Obama’s budget:
You say the CBO says the recession is going to end anyway. The CBO itself says that the recovery is helped by what the Administration and the Fed are doing. How do you square that circle?
Surprisingly, the GOP “budget” plan increases taxes on lower-income people while greatly decreasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Color me shocked. :eek:
Someone stepped on them, perhaps?
I should have come to your defense a short time back when some ass hole ragged your posts.
I love 'em. Honest. :D:D:D
ah, yes. You can’t be wrong, therefore there must be a conspiracy.
Powerful, unrebuttable argument. But you’re still wrong.
Quoth Sam Stone:
My apologies, then, for painting you with an overly-broad brush.
No prob. Let 'em rag, adds a little pepper.
I blush.
Can’t determine anything from that pdf. Those nineteen pages should have been an introduction to a larger, wider budget that pairs their own numbers with President Obama’s and CBO projections. Instead, it boils down to a bunch of shoulda-coulda-woulda that’s gratitiously ornate in pictures and diagrams but lacking in substance. I feel sorry for the Republicans. By presenting this to the American people as a “budget”, they haven’t just shot themselves in the foot, the party as a collective shot themselves in the head. This is indeed the end of a Conservative Age.
- Honesty
The distance as such wasn’t the problem for us any more than for you; it was the nature of the treatment of the colonies by that government. While distance may have helped the administration in London see the colonies as just another bunch of rustic savages, it was the treatment that that attitude engendered that caused the problem. Different treatment by London of the formerly-French colony up north is the essential reason you now have funny football rules.
That is, shall we say, a quite unconventional interpretation to lecture us rustic savages with. One devoid of any connection with history and context. Where the hell did you get *that *notion from?
That is their “plan”?
It’s garbage.