[SAUNDERSAN]

Its dirty ploy by republicans to get what they want and to scare off no voters for fear of being anti-military. Is this how you think government shoudl be run?

Bill should be single measures only. Is there anyone here that disagrees with me and that truely believes this is the best way to run the country?

[awagsFare]

Its dirty ploy by republicans to get what they want and to scare off no voters for fear of being anti-military. Is this how you think government shoudl be run?

Bill should be single measures only. Is there anyone here that disagrees with me and that truely believes this is the best way to run the country?

Best way to run a country? No.

The actual way that the USA is run? Certainly it is.

Shall we wait while some rightwinger digs up some favoured liberal legislation that entered life through being 'tacked on' to some unrelated Bill? Shouldn't take very long...

Fact is, 'tacking on' such supplementary riders onto already approved legislation is a very, very common tactic in Congress. Indeed, evidence suggests that 'tack-ons' can be quite substantial and even can bypass Congress itself... amazing system actually, if you follow the process through.

Amazing that it works and no one has charged Congress with fraud yet.

But don't trying throwing rocks here Danny. I could probably make you rather indignant if I were to thoroughly describe how legislation is achieved up here in Canada. The process is different than that of the USA, but not much prettier.

In other words, the Republican action in this case is no more dirty than any other legislative initiative in the USA. Perfectly normal - it ain't pretty, but it is apparently legal and very common.

[Âåðåùàãèí]

Its dirty ploy by republicans to get what they want and to scare off no voters for fear of being anti-military. Is this how you think government shoudl be run?

Bill should be single measures only. Is there anyone here that disagrees with me and that truely believes this is the best way to run the country?

Why should it be a single measure only?
It's not as if the Surrendercrats don't stuff every essential bill with their goofy crap.
I am really disappointed the Republicans can't open up every area within the US to energy exploration. This WILL happen, it's just a matter of time.

[Ygd2qr8k]

It's not as if the Surrendercrats don't stuff every essential bill with their goofy crap.

I know its a waste of time to engage you, but you can't really believe this can you?

Please review the most recent Highway Appropriations bill (or any of the last three or four) and repeat your statement with a straight face.

Fact is, the Congressional Republicans have increased pork-barrel 'ear-marks' by a ten-fold increase over Clinton era comparisons.

[Fegemiembendy]

I know its a waste of time to engage you, but you can't really believe this can you?

Please review the most recent Highway Appropriations bill (or any of the last three or four) and repeat your statement with a straight face.

Fact is, the Congressional Republicans have increased pork-barrel 'ear-marks' by a ten-fold increase over Clinton era comparisons.

Bah Humbug!
I never said the Republicans don't load up essential spending bills with crap.
I was only addressing the ANWR point.
If you want to say that the Republicans are almost as bad as the Surrendercrats when it comes to pork then I'm afaid I will have to walk with you in full agreement. Hell, I'll even support your saying they are just as bad as the Demoncrats, but that is not what this thread is about.

[treawittelf]

This could have easily been avoided by using the line-item veto. The problem is, although several presidents have been asking for it, it took until the Clinton administration to get it. Then, for some unknown reason the Supremes shot it down.

[griddle]

This could have easily been avoided by using the line-item veto. The problem is, although several presidents have been asking for it, it took until the Clinton administration to get it. Then, for some unknown reason the Supremes shot it down.

Interesting point. I agree a 'line-item veto' might 'reduce' the problem, but to me, the clear source of the problem is the US Constitution itself that splits responsibility for government finance between Congress and the Executive.

The result is that neither is held to be ultimately responsible for the nation's finances - thus spending is on a never-ending upwards spiral and neither the President nor Congress is rationally held accountable for it and thus neither have any incentive to address increases in wasteful spending - indeed, because of the US system, both the President and Congress have strong vested interests in increasing spending.

A line-item veto clearly and unequivically hands the power of the purse over to the Executive - that's why SCOTUS struck it down. Constitutionally, that was the correct decision in law. The flaw therefore lies in the US Constitution.

If anything, I agree with the opening post that slipping these 'riders' in (like ANWR) into a bill after it has been approved in both Houses is a really, really undemocratic (and highly corrupt) way to create legislation (though not necessary any more corrupt than the manner and process utilised in other western nations - perhaps only more blatantly corrupt).

But again, this problem is also a result of the mix-mash of divided (and therefore avoided) responsibility between the 'branches' of the US government.

When people praise the principle of the "separation of powers" being integral to democracy, that is true - and specifically refers to the separation of the judicial and the executive.

Separating the executive from the legislature poses no theoretical advantage worthy of praise. Indeed, it produces perversities such as 'riders' added to bills after they have been passed by Congress.

[adoreorerie]

I would think the only way to go in that case is to eliminate amendments or riders from ALL bills. You want a vote on ANWR then submit it for a vote, alone.
It's just a cheap way to make points with the electorate or to create ammunition against your opponents and has no business in the process.

[reiseebup]

I know its a waste of time to engage you, but you can't really believe this can you?

Please review the most recent Highway Appropriations bill (or any of the last three or four) and repeat your statement with a straight face.

Fact is, the Congressional Republicans have increased pork-barrel 'ear-marks' by a ten-fold increase over Clinton era comparisons.

Considering that Republicans took over Congress 2 years into Clinton's FISRT term, just what are you trying to say?

[Andromino]

I know its a waste of time to engage you, but you can't really believe this can you?

Please review the most recent Highway Appropriations bill (or any of the last three or four) and repeat your statement with a straight face.

Fact is, the Congressional Republicans have increased pork-barrel 'ear-marks' by a ten-fold increase over Clinton era comparisons.

Truly. Republicans are no longer a party of small government.

Wake up, conservatives! You've been bamboozeled. You can't have your cake and eat it, too - you can't have your social programs and your tax cuts, too.

[PolPitasc]

Interesting point. I agree a 'line-item veto' might 'reduce' the problem, but to me, the clear source of the problem is the US Constitution itself that splits responsibility for government finance between Congress and the Executive.

The result is that neither is held to be ultimately responsible for the nation's finances - thus spending is on a never-ending upwards spiral and neither the President nor Congress is rationally held accountable for it and thus neither have any incentive to address increases in wasteful spending - indeed, because of the US system, both the President and Congress have strong vested interests in increasing spending.

A line-item veto clearly and unequivically hands the power of the purse over to the Executive - that's why SCOTUS struck it down. Constitutionally, that was the correct decision in law. The flaw therefore lies in the US Constitution.

Very good summary of the Constitutional dilemma.
If anything, I agree with the opening post that slipping these 'riders' in (like ANWR) into a bill after it has been approved in both Houses is a really, really undemocratic (and highly corrupt) way to create legislation (though not necessary any more corrupt than the manner and process utilised in other western nations - perhaps only more blatantly corrupt).

But again, this problem is also a result of the mix-mash of divided (and therefore avoided) responsibility between the 'branches' of the US government.

When people praise the principle of the "separation of powers" being integral to democracy, that is true - and specifically refers to the separation of the judicial and the executive.

Separating the executive from the legislature poses no theoretical advantage worthy of praise. Indeed, it produces perversities such as 'riders' added to bills after they have been passed by Congress. I think that you're missing an important point. The President has the ultimate veto power over a budget. Clinton and Reagan both exercised that veto, IIRC. In Clinton's case, it was lauded as preventing those bad Republicans from starving the poor and children when they submitted a balanced budget complete with real cuts. In Reagan's case, it was an irresponsible act designed to shut down the country and starver the poor and children when he vetoed a bloated budget submitted by a Democratic Congress. It seems that the liberal spin always prevailed.

In accordance with our Constitution, only the House of Representatives has the authority to actually spend Federal money. At any point in time, a fiscally responsible HR can defund ANY program. Unfortunately, a fiscally-responsible HR is as rare as hen's teeth nowadays.

[StizePypemype]

Why not just prohibit the government from stealing money from its citizens, or doing anything outside of providing military and police (and court) support?

That would solve all this pork-barrel spending, quickly. Want some free healthcare? Start a damn charity.

[sapedotru]

Why not just prohibit the government from stealing money from its citizens, or doing anything outside of providing military and police (and court) support?

That would solve all this pork-barrel spending, quickly. Want some free healthcare? Start a damn charity.

Works for me.

[hhynmtrxcp]

Why not just prohibit the government from stealing money from its citizens, or doing anything outside of providing military and police (and court) support?

That would solve all this pork-barrel spending, quickly. Want some free healthcare? Start a damn charity.

See this is where you keep getting tripped up. It is ok for them to spend tax dollars on the things you find important but not on things you find worthless.

[Nothatspecial]

See this is where you keep getting tripped up. It is ok for them to spend tax dollars on the things you find important but not on things you find worthless.

Er, its not okay for them to spend any tax dollars, tough guy. I don't think taxes are justifiable.

[Glanteeignile]

Er, its not okay for them to spend any tax dollars, tough guy. I don't think taxes are justifiable.

alas we live in this society..
so what of these various riders? is it a good way to legislate or a sneaky tactic. It is not really pork if the spending is not regional/special etc. b This attaches the popular to the pet project for votes.
IMO my view on it changes with the rider. It has been a while since I have seen a good add on though

[Karinochka]

Or you could just push for changes that make pork impossible.

I'm not seeing why all this throwing up of the hands and "such is life" is warrented. People made this country, it can be remade, if need be.

[Kdgjhytiy]

Er, its not okay for them to spend any tax dollars, tough guy. I don't think taxes are justifiable.

Would you describe your political view as libertarian?

[Wgnhqhlg]

Best way to run a country? No.

The actual way that the USA is run? Certainly it is.

Shall we wait while some rightwinger digs up some favoured liberal legislation that entered life through being 'tacked on' to some unrelated Bill? Shouldn't take very long...

Fact is, 'tacking on' such supplementary riders onto already approved legislation is a very, very common tactic in Congress. Indeed, evidence suggests that 'tack-ons' can be quite substantial and even can bypass Congress itself... amazing system actually, if you follow the process through.

Amazing that it works and no one has charged Congress with fraud yet.

But don't trying throwing rocks here Danny. I could probably make you rather indignant if I were to thoroughly describe how legislation is achieved up here in Canada. The process is different than that of the USA, but not much prettier.

In other words, the Republican action in this case is no more dirty than any other legislative initiative in the USA. Perfectly normal - it ain't pretty, but it is apparently legal and very common.

Danny lives in Canada and cant be expected think things through. Go easy on him. Well said though. Very common behavior for the congress. As for ANWR, I could easily see how its related to national defense. More domestic oil means more GDP, and less dependence on foreign oil.

[toopyimport]

Danny lives in Canada and cant be expected think things through. Go easy on him. Well said though. Very common behavior for the congress. As for ANWR, I could easily see how its related to national defense. More domestic oil means more GDP, and less dependence on foreign oil.

I'm hardly going to defend Danny here, however, your insult to me cannot be overlooked.

I too live in Canada, so I guess I can't be expected to think things though either.

By your words you shall be known.

* * *

As for "more oil", ANWR is a mere drop in the bucket of US oil consumption. The USA has never been dependent upon any Middle Eastern oil.

Canada, Mexico and Venezuela supply almost all of US oil imports. Given that Canada has now officially been moved to the #2 spot on the world's listing of proven reserves, I don't think the USA has any strategic weakness in their oil supply.

However, if jackass Americans keep insulting Canada as often as they do, perhaps you just might end up with some long term supply problems here...