Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (27013)	10/4/2004 12:37:12 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 173976

The dol site you provided showed federal employees falling sharply after Republicans recaptured Congress. They began rising slightly after GW took office. Nonsense. The chart shows that Federal employment fell sharply beginning in 1993. As soon as Clinton took office. This chart shows that Congress didn't go Republican until 1994. And that is arguable as the Senate was split. There was no clear domination in the Senate by Republicans. Perhaps it was Ford's rate of veto that set a record. Or perhaps it's just one of the myths that's spread around and repeated so often that people believe it. According the The Constitution spending bills get originated in the House. Democrats still controlled the House. I will concede that this no longer bears a strong resemblance to reality. After the Executive submits a budget to Congress. Congress has no cabability to originate a budget. They have to rely solely on the Executive to provide a basis for the appropriations bills. Congress is not going to come up with an estimate of how many rolls of toilet paper the DoD needs without getting a proposed budget from the Executive. The notion that the President's budget is DOA is nonsense. Historically, every newly elected President gets the exact budget that they proposed in the first year. It's tradition. Reagan gave a lot on appropriations to get his priorities. What programs, how much? Show me. You won't find anything of significance. No one has. It's a myth. One of the other twists that the Reagan Administration did, was to lowball the initial budget submission and then follow it up throughout the year with "supplementals" which Congress would approve. Then the political rhetoric would compare the President's initial submission against the actual FY expenditures claiming that it was Congress that "spent" the difference. Congress doesn't "spend"; Congress "authorizes" what the Executive spends. Bush Jr. took this tactic to levels of absurdity. Submitting a budget proposal for the DoD that included no funds for the War in Iraq. Other gimmicks by the Executive include low-balling estimates for unemployment [Bush's tax cuts would create a zillion jobs] which would be relected in lower unemployment rates than would be realized. Or high-ball Federal revenues that would be collected, thereby minimizing the Federal deficit. How many people check that economic assumptions [revenues, growth, interest rates, unemployment, etc.] in the Executive's budge submission against what actually happened. Count 'em on one hand. Clinton, however took it as a personal mission to emaciate the armed forces. How much did this effect the total government payroll? That's an easy answer if you look in the glossary. Table B does not include any active military. They're excluded in that table. The answer is zero. Beyond that, you'll notice that Rumsfeld has refused to increase any additional active military authorizations. Prior to 9/11 he was pitching Congress to reduce the active military personnel and bases even further than Clinton. Even today, Rummy refuses to increase military authorization. If those numbers are accurate, then something is wrong. Is the understanding correct that most earmarks are Congressional mandates? It's the classic defintion of an "earmark". They come from Congress and historically President's don't screw with them. President's also don't screw with the operating budgets of Congess or the Judicial. Bush is no different. He bitches on the podium about them, as all Presidents do. And he does nothing about them, as all Presidents do. Members of Congress don't bring back "pork" to their constitutents, they represent the interests of their constituents. Other members from other States bring in "pork". And they all smile at each other as they write up and trade pork with each other. Outside of pork, Congress doesn't screw much with the President's budget submission. They tweak aroung the edges and affect the budget submission a very small %. Look at Mandatory Spending. Spending that is required by law. The President is required to put it in the budget submission by law and the Congress is required to approve it by law. heritage.org Let's look at Non-defense discretionary spending by Administration. heritage.org Take a look at the Reagan years and tell me that he compromised with Democrats in non-defense spending. It's not there! Look at Clinton's years. End to end, flat. Then look at Bush jr. It's not flat. And as a historical note. Look at the brief years of Ford. That's one hell of an upward slope in non-defense discretionary spending with all those "vetoes" you refer to. And when it comes to discretionay spending, it's difficult to figure out how much is really discretionary. How much flexibility is there in toilet paper, paper, pens, water, electricity, etc.... There is a ton of information at: heritage.org And I believe that they have presented the information accurately. I don't necessarily ageee with the sentence of explanation that they provide with each chart/table, but the information is there. jttmab

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (27013)	10/4/2004 3:33:34 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Cheney wanted to cut defense spending AND reduce troops by 400,000. Iraq is a chaotic mess because Rummy wanted to do this war on the cheap. You will find that earning respect is a more effective way of influencing others. You should take your own advice.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (27013)	10/4/2004 4:17:39 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Presidential Vetoes [1789-2003] infoplease.com Ford did pretty well...I don't know what it means, but he did well. Look at FDR. I enjoy looking at the "pocket vetoes". That's when the President doesn't have the balls to directly confront Congress with a real veto. It seems that after Eisenhower, all the Presidents were wimps with the veto pen. You can move Ford to the top, if you only consider Presidents after Eisenhower and only address vetoes/year. But I would consider that data mining. jttmab