A good example of overspending is the Hurricane Sandy relief bill. Of the 60.4 Billion dollars of spending projects are:
2.4 million for Border contral damaged vehicles
$4 million repair job at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
$13 billion has also been added in to protect against future storms
$150 million for fisheries in Alaska
$125 million for a Department of Agriculture program that would help Colorado cope with summer wildfires.

I am sure that most of the spending is helpful to those affected, but there is waste. Politicians cant help themselves. Is this considered waste to others?

Bartlett saying that "starving the beast" wont work is true. You cannot just cut all spending any more than just raising taxes to solve the problem. It takes a measured response to reduce spending and long-term obligations and measured tax increases that will sunset after the debt is reduced. The BBA being adopted as Constitutional law would avoid this in the future.

bbauska

Is this considered waste to others?

Based on the information you've provided ?

I look forward to reasonable Democrats. They want the Clinton tax rates. Awesome.

I want the Clinton spending. Feel free to adjust for inflation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Unite ... ral_budget

Let's see, spending was $1.7T in FY 1999. So, what do you think? $2.2T?

Fine. Make it happen.

No Ricky, it is a question. Do you think it applies to Hurricane Sandy relief as the bill is named?

bbauska

No Ricky, it is a question. Do you think it applies to Hurricane Sandy relief as the bill is named

Don't know about items 1 through 3. They might be Hurricane Sandy. 3 certainly makes sense if whats been learnt from Sandy is being applied.
And although 4 and 5 don't, on the face of it, seem to have anything to do with Sandy, how do you know they are NOT vital expenditures well worth supporting?
If you are railing about the way legislation is written and passed through Congress, that's one thing. Omnibus bills are indeed a great way to hide waste, feather bedding and corrupt spending. But if you are specifically claiming that this is waste, you haven't proven anything.
I'm reminded of certain congressmen complaining about 2 million being provided for funding on research on volcanoes... As it it was some great waste or extravagance.
Then volcano erupted and spewed ash for thousands of kilometres. Turns out one of the benefits of the volcano research was the ability to forecast the spread direction and speed of volcanic ash, which stalls jet airplanes and they fall from the sky.
Not a waste of money in the end.

Budgeting is setting priorities. You may have a different idea of where something should be prioritized if you have complete information .

So, pretty much like the President, you believe every bit of spending is needed--and more? The only cuts the Left wants is defense.

fate

So, pretty much like the President, you believe every bit of spending is needed--and more?

Is that what I said? Or the President?
I said that there was incomplete information to make a call.
(Whereas a reflexive response, however poorly informed, is right up your alley?)

I also said that budgeting is about setting priorities. I'm a fiscal conservative who believes that in good economic times a government needs to run small surpluses, in order to reduce deficit and be in the position to spend in recessions to blunt the effects of the recession and speed recovery.

The US has not really grown its economy to where austerity makes a lot of sense. But, spending should be wise and not extravagant just the same. If I had to choose between sustaining a fifth fleet, or building dikes, and storm surge barriers that protected New York and New Jersey from a repeat of the effects of Hurricane Sandy I'd choose the barriers. I see the real damage from the Storms, and the probability of a recurrence as more likely and a more positive contribution then sustaining a superfluous military presence.

But that's an arbitrary juxtaposition of two budget items....
Kind of like the list bbauska produced.
Still, the cost of the fifth fleet, would probably pay for everything required from Sandy.

rickyp wrote:fate

So, pretty much like the President, you believe every bit of spending is needed--and more?

Is that what I said? Or the President?

That is exactly what the President has said. In fact, he is not only calling for more stimulus spending (that was in his demand to Boehner), but he's got the Fed printing $85B a month in what some call "QE infinity."

I said that there was incomplete information to make a call.
(Whereas a reflexive response, however poorly informed, is right up your alley?)

When it comes to being poorly informed, you are the expert. I consider myself chastised.

Of course, that I am right doesn't really move you.

I also said that budgeting is about setting priorities. I'm a fiscal conservative who believes that in good economic times a government needs to run small surpluses, in order to reduce deficit and be in the position to spend in recessions to blunt the effects of the recession and speed recovery.

So, what's the right thing to do in the midst of stagnation? Increase government spending and taxes? If that's fiscal conservatism, no thanks.

The US has not really grown its economy to where austerity makes a lot of sense. But, spending should be wise and not extravagant just the same. If I had to choose between sustaining a fifth fleet, or building dikes, and storm surge barriers that protected New York and New Jersey from a repeat of the effects of Hurricane Sandy I'd choose the barriers. I see the real damage from the Storms, and the probability of a recurrence as more likely and a more positive contribution then sustaining a superfluous military presence.

Sigh.

You know what? If Obama would have run on gutting the military, I could at least respect him. Instead, as David Axelrod's candidates do, he ran on very nearly nothing except raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires."

bbauska wrote:A good example of overspending is the Hurricane Sandy relief bill. Of the 60.4 Billion dollars of spending projects are:
2.4 million for Border contral damaged vehicles
$4 million repair job at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
$13 billion has also been added in to protect against future storms
$150 million for fisheries in Alaska
$125 million for a Department of Agriculture program that would help Colorado cope with summer wildfires.

I am sure that most of the spending is helpful to those affected, but there is waste. Politicians cant help themselves. Is this considered waste to others?

While it's not necessarily related to the storm damage itself, that doesn't mean it's a 'waste'. We'd have to look at each item on their merits an ask how they got there - and what would happen had they not, would they just be tagged onto the next available spending bill?

But on each one:

1) You support border control don't you? I think I've seen you and DF argue for stricter policing of the borders of the USA to keep out illegal immigrants. If there are damaged border control vehicles, that would impair their ability to do the work.
2) If the KSS was damaged in the storms, and if it is intended to use it (I know that shuttle programme is over, but it does more than that and there are three pads used for launching unmanned flights at Cape Canaveral that are managed from the KSS. As it's a Federal agency, who would we expect to pay for repairs?
3) As the flood defences were not adequate, it seems reasonable to not only do they need to be restored, but further work is needed to prevent a repeat of the flooding we saw from Sandy. Not spending such money could well be a false economy - we have seen in the UK heavy flooding in recent weeks, and some places where the government cut funding for planned defences were hit badly. There is now a brewing row between the government and insurers about future guarantees on household flood insurance.
4) Clearly not related to Sandy, but without knowing what it's for, I can't say it's a 'waste'. Can you provide more than just a line about it?
5) Again, not related to Sandy, but if Colorado has a problem with summer wildfires, how do we know it's a 'waste'. Do you have information that can fill this out a bit more?

We've had a discussion about the naming of Congressional bills. It's often manipulative and all about spinning it to help it through and gain popularity. Similarly, I think we've already talked about how Congress allows 'rider' clauses to be added to bills, especially spending bills. Sometimes that does mean congressmembers getting a local project funded as a 'price' for being in favour of a Bill, or not even that sometimes. But as I say, each should be taken on their own merits.

Bartlett saying that "starving the beast" wont work is true. You cannot just cut all spending any more than just raising taxes to solve the problem. It takes a measured response to reduce spending and long-term obligations and measured tax increases that will sunset after the debt is reduced.

Sure, but I think you underestimate how long it's going to take. Even the Ryan-Romney plans were not going to get the deficit down to zero within a decade or so.

But I do agree with you. It will take a combination of tax increases (best targeted at those who can afford it, and not on those with little disposable income) and spending cuts (bet targeted to avoid those that would be detrimental to the economy).

However, what Bartlett is saying is that the long-term obligations can be dealt with using modest reform that has a cumulative effect over years. For example, a programme that grows at 4% a year will be 119.1% bigger in 20 years. If you can restrict it to 3% per annum, that would be only 80.6% growth - a cut of a quarter in growth results in a reduction by almost one third due to cumulative effects.

The BBA being adopted as Constitutional law would avoid this in the future.

I suspect that it won't be adopted. Firstly because it would be a great constraint on future Congresses. Secondly because by the time it became a realistic practical possibility to have a balanced budget (which is not for quite a few years), the urgency will have gone, for that very reason. Thirdly, even if it does, there will be a way to wriggle out of it.

And fourth a balanced budget amendment is a very bad idea. It prevents the government from deficit spending to stave of recessions/depressions and spending during wars to ensure national survival. Sure glad we did not have one during WW II. How one deals with personal finances does not translate well into national fiscal policy.

freeman2 wrote:And fourth a balanced budget amendment is a very bad idea. It prevents the government from deficit spending to stave of recessions/depressions and spending during wars to ensure national survival. Sure glad we did not have one during WW II. How one deals with personal finances does not translate well into national fiscal policy.

Well, there will obviously be an exception in a BBA in the event of war.

And there is the get-out - just declare a continuous war on a nebulous enemy like 'Terror'. Job done.

Yeah, when I was writing above I was thinking that Brad (or someone) would say there will an exception for war, but the exception will be either be too narrow (and harm national security when we need money to spend on national security--e.g., the Cold War) or the exception will swallow the amendment (as you pointed out). That is why you need flexibility.

freeman2 wrote:And fourth a balanced budget amendment is a very bad idea. It prevents the government from deficit spending to stave of recessions/depressions and spending during wars to ensure national survival. Sure glad we did not have one during WW II. How one deals with personal finances does not translate well into national fiscal policy.

There could be an exception for "national emergency" as declared by the President and certified by a 2/3 vote of both Houses.

Agreed and stipulated.

Uh-oh, bad guy and bogeyman, Grover Norquist, agrees to tax increase! Who will liberals excoriate now?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/ ... 9220121219