Post by Tim Collins on Oct 23, 2009 9:24:29 GMT -7
Revised and expanded 10/26/09, apologies for not formatting.
Strengthening America’s Financial Pillar
Facebook Status: Tim Collins is contemplating why our elected officials always want change to happen to us, but never see they are the ones that need to change?
Oct. 15, 2009
After I posted the above “status update” I received only a few replies on my Facebook page, but I also received a number of e-mails that shared the common theme along the lines of “I agree, but what can be done about it, and /or what would you suggest can be done.”
I had been asking myself the same question when I wrote my last contribution to NPT
(http://newspapertree.com/opinion/4289-the-four-pillars-of-america-s-greatness), and giving it some considerable thought. We are living in very challenging times. As a nation we face many challenges and are undergoing some dramatic changes. I wrote the last article as a means of providing a framework for contemplating where we are as a nation today, and what actions we need to take to get back on track towards the ideal destination we sought when our nation launched the “grand experiment” in democracy.
While each of the four pillars I described previously are all important and tightly interrelated; I am starting with the financial pillar because in my estimation the most serious challenges we face today our rooted in our national financial condition. I believe there are some basic steps that can be taken today to begin restoring our financial strength and those steps can only be taken by our elected representatives in the Congress. The three steps outlined below will not eliminate the deficit, but all can be implemented quickly and can set the stage for future, more difficult, decisions that will be required to institutionalize a sense of national priorities and frugality necessary to prevent a continuation of our government’s love affair with deficit spending.
Changing the Rules
Looking at the “Financial Strength” pillar, the starting point is changing the rules of the spending game played in both the House and the Senate.
Members of Congress (House and Senate) have two responsibilities as representatives. As individuals they have an obligation to represent the interests of their individual state and its citizens. Collectively they must act in the interest of the nation as a whole and fulfill their role as a check and balance on the Executive Branch. Their most powerful means of accomplishing these roles is the power of the purse that the Constitution assigns to them.
Our nation is facing two primary financial challenges at this time, an unprecedented budget deficit and a frightening level of national debt. Given the state of the economy, and the recent government actions taken to attempt to restore stability to the financial markets and stimulate the economy, both the deficit and debt levels have understandably been pushed higher and higher. The time to act to rein in wasteful spending is now, and the change MUST come from The Congress. Gandhi once said “Be the change you want to see in the world”. Our elected representatives have an obligation to change how they exercise their spending authority. The growth in our foreign debt is driven by our need to finance (borrow) spending that exceeds the revenue the government collects. So the first action we can take is to begin living within our means. Reducing the current deficit should be a priority.
Deficit Reduction: Congressional Earmarks
The responsibility for developing a budget rests with individual departments in the Executive Branch of our government. Under The U.S. Constitution, the role of Congress is to review and decide if they will be funded and at what level of funding.
Unfortunately for all of us, both houses of congress have made it their practice to add items not requested. For example in an analysis of the last appropriations bill Citizens Against Government Waste found:
“…$6,430,414,000 for 142 anonymous projects. This accounted for 6.6 percent of the earmarks and 57 percent of the cost in the (Defense Appropriations) bill. There were several big-ticket items, including: $523,000,000 for advance procurement for 20 F-22A’s; $200,000,000 for advance procurement of the DDG-51 Naval Ship (the DDG-51 program received two earmarks worth $10,300,000 in fiscal year 2008); $88,000,000 for one C-40 aircraft; and $70,230,000 for one C-37B aircraft.”
www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2009#Defense
According to a recent Washington Times article, “In addition to the $2.6 billion in earmarks, the bill (Defense Appropriations Bill) includes $2.5 billion for 10 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the military says it does not need, and $1.7 billion for an extra DDG-51 destroyer not requested in the Pentagon’s budget proposal.”
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/troop-funds-diverted-to-pet-projects/
The days of members seeing the national revenue stream, as their personal piggy bank must end, and the power to end this wasteful spending rests in their own hands.
Unfortunately, collectively they have repeatedly refused to demonstrate the fiscal responsibility and moral fortitude to do so.
This then is where we must begin to “change” how things are done, in the very rules of the House. If we remove the ability to slip unwanted spending into executive department appropriation requests we can restore some sense to our spending. I have discussed this change with a number of friends and typically the response has been that this is not a change we will see in our life times. Why would a representative give up their ability to buy the goodwill of their constituents by demonstrating that they are able to bring home the bacon?
Ironically, our representatives already written such a rule; but seem to use it only selectively. Here is an example of how The House has already defined and prohibited earmarks in specific resolutions:
H.R.2701 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Reported in House):
SEC. 105. PROHIBITION ON EARMARKS.
(a) In General- Nothing in the classified Schedule of Authorizations, a report of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives or the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate to accompany the bill H.R. 2701 of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, a joint statement of the managers accompanying a conference report on such bill, or the classified annex to this Act, shall be construed to authorize or require the expenditure of funds for a congressional earmark.
(b) Congressional Earmark Defined- In this section, the term `congressional earmark’ means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives or a Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality, or congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.
My proposal is quite simple. Our elected representatives in the House and Senate should step up and propose legislation to codify the above rule to apply to the entire appropriations process. The power to implement this rule already exists in both the House and the Senate, as they are constitutionally authorized to define their own rules and procedures. The question remains, do they have the intestinal fortitude to do so?
To ease the pain of “Pork Barrel withdrawal” I would add, as a means for representatives to fight for funding for their individual states, a separate appropriations bill dedicated to appropriations specifically ear marked by members of Congress. Let them make their individual requests in the light of day and go on record with their votes. Perhaps in this manner we can better monitor the potentially wasteful spending that takes place today.
Honestly do we really need to spend “$25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy?” (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/troop-funds-diverted-to-pet-projects/)
Deficit Reduction: Stealth Legislation
“On Thursday (10/22/09), the U.S. Senate passed legislation that expanded the civil rights-era hate crime law, making it a federal crime to physically assault an individual based on their sexual orientation…
… After years of being defeated in Congress, the hate crimes bill was attached to a $680 billion defense authorization bill to assure passage.”
media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2009/10/26/News/Hate-Crime.Prevention.Act.Passes.In.Congress-3812334.shtml
No matter your personal position on the issue of hate crimes legislation, clearly there is no direct tie between hate crimes and defense appropriations. This legislative “slight of hand”, including a piece of legislation that on its own would face serious debate into an appropriations bill that many would feel unwilling to vote against, is another political tactic that must be changed.
The tactic is clearly an abuse of the legislative process, and opens the door to not only questionable laws, but additional wasteful spending.
Congress must stop using this tactic to avoid honest debate on issues. As with Congressional earmark, it is within their authority to change the rules so that such tactics may not be employed going forward. House rules should be re-written to allow members in opposition to such “stealth” legislation the right to offer a motion to strip the specific legislation from any bill under consideration by a simple voice vote on the floor. In this manner critical appropriations can move forward and honest debate can be held on the legislation in question.
A Presidential line item veto has been rightly ruled un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court on the basis that it would undermine the powers granted to Congress. In line with that ruling, Congress must exercise its powers and develop a line item veto mechanism within its own process. Laws may be developed in committees for reasons of productivity and efficiency, but they should be debated and resolved only after the full house membership has had an opportunity to take action. The current rules have delegated far too much power to a small group of party loyalist on committees and thus denied each of us the full representation of our views by the officials we elected.
Deficit Reduction: Federal Payroll
The total Federal Government payroll at November 2008 was $13,516,103,000. The Executive Branch accounted for 97% of this amount. Every dollar spent on payroll was approved by Congress during the appropriations process.
(http://opm.gov/feddata/html/2008/november/table9.asp)
While the Federal Government is engaged in the process of controlling payroll at those private companies that benefited from tax payer bailouts, it should also begin looking at ways to reduce the payroll in its own operations. With total civilian employment of 2,040,282, clearly there is some room for reduction.
Congress should direct the Office of Personnel Management to conduct a survey of all civilian employees to determine how many can be reduced by attrition (those eligible for retirement in each of the next five years) and develop a plan for operating without replacing those staff. In addition, Congress should look for opportunities to eliminate duplication of efforts across all departments. A reduction of only 10% in payroll costs would produce $1,351,610,300 in expense reduction, roughly 1% of the current budget deficit. Clearly this would not produce a significant reduction to the deficit, but it would send the message that the continued growth of Federal employment will not be continued.
The More Difficult Challenge
The above three suggestions are merely a starting point for the fundamental changes that must take place.
Serious and sustainable improvement of our financial position will require that our elected representatives begin to honestly debate the very role of our nation in the greater world. Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has accepted the role of “leader of the free world”. We have spent untold trillions providing a military security blanket for many free nations. We have shed far too much blood in the cause of freedom, or sadly in misguided attempts to advance our own agenda in foreign lands. The time has come to consider the role we, the people, see for our nation and for our representatives to re-align our national priorities and spending to assume that role.
On the domestic front, just as serious a discussion needs to take place. We must decide, and define what the role of the Federal Government is as compared to State Government roles.
Until we define our role in the world, and our domestic priorities, we cannot define our spending priorities. The time to have these discussions is now.
Strengthening America’s Financial Pillar
Facebook Status: Tim Collins is contemplating why our elected officials always want change to happen to us, but never see they are the ones that need to change?
Oct. 15, 2009
After I posted the above “status update” I received only a few replies on my Facebook page, but I also received a number of e-mails that shared the common theme along the lines of “I agree, but what can be done about it, and /or what would you suggest can be done.”
I had been asking myself the same question when I wrote my last contribution to NPT
(http://newspapertree.com/opinion/4289-the-four-pillars-of-america-s-greatness), and giving it some considerable thought. We are living in very challenging times. As a nation we face many challenges and are undergoing some dramatic changes. I wrote the last article as a means of providing a framework for contemplating where we are as a nation today, and what actions we need to take to get back on track towards the ideal destination we sought when our nation launched the “grand experiment” in democracy.
While each of the four pillars I described previously are all important and tightly interrelated; I am starting with the financial pillar because in my estimation the most serious challenges we face today our rooted in our national financial condition. I believe there are some basic steps that can be taken today to begin restoring our financial strength and those steps can only be taken by our elected representatives in the Congress. The three steps outlined below will not eliminate the deficit, but all can be implemented quickly and can set the stage for future, more difficult, decisions that will be required to institutionalize a sense of national priorities and frugality necessary to prevent a continuation of our government’s love affair with deficit spending.
Changing the Rules
Looking at the “Financial Strength” pillar, the starting point is changing the rules of the spending game played in both the House and the Senate.
Members of Congress (House and Senate) have two responsibilities as representatives. As individuals they have an obligation to represent the interests of their individual state and its citizens. Collectively they must act in the interest of the nation as a whole and fulfill their role as a check and balance on the Executive Branch. Their most powerful means of accomplishing these roles is the power of the purse that the Constitution assigns to them.
Our nation is facing two primary financial challenges at this time, an unprecedented budget deficit and a frightening level of national debt. Given the state of the economy, and the recent government actions taken to attempt to restore stability to the financial markets and stimulate the economy, both the deficit and debt levels have understandably been pushed higher and higher. The time to act to rein in wasteful spending is now, and the change MUST come from The Congress. Gandhi once said “Be the change you want to see in the world”. Our elected representatives have an obligation to change how they exercise their spending authority. The growth in our foreign debt is driven by our need to finance (borrow) spending that exceeds the revenue the government collects. So the first action we can take is to begin living within our means. Reducing the current deficit should be a priority.
Deficit Reduction: Congressional Earmarks
The responsibility for developing a budget rests with individual departments in the Executive Branch of our government. Under The U.S. Constitution, the role of Congress is to review and decide if they will be funded and at what level of funding.
Unfortunately for all of us, both houses of congress have made it their practice to add items not requested. For example in an analysis of the last appropriations bill Citizens Against Government Waste found:
“…$6,430,414,000 for 142 anonymous projects. This accounted for 6.6 percent of the earmarks and 57 percent of the cost in the (Defense Appropriations) bill. There were several big-ticket items, including: $523,000,000 for advance procurement for 20 F-22A’s; $200,000,000 for advance procurement of the DDG-51 Naval Ship (the DDG-51 program received two earmarks worth $10,300,000 in fiscal year 2008); $88,000,000 for one C-40 aircraft; and $70,230,000 for one C-37B aircraft.”
www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2009#Defense
According to a recent Washington Times article, “In addition to the $2.6 billion in earmarks, the bill (Defense Appropriations Bill) includes $2.5 billion for 10 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the military says it does not need, and $1.7 billion for an extra DDG-51 destroyer not requested in the Pentagon’s budget proposal.”
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/troop-funds-diverted-to-pet-projects/
The days of members seeing the national revenue stream, as their personal piggy bank must end, and the power to end this wasteful spending rests in their own hands.
Unfortunately, collectively they have repeatedly refused to demonstrate the fiscal responsibility and moral fortitude to do so.
This then is where we must begin to “change” how things are done, in the very rules of the House. If we remove the ability to slip unwanted spending into executive department appropriation requests we can restore some sense to our spending. I have discussed this change with a number of friends and typically the response has been that this is not a change we will see in our life times. Why would a representative give up their ability to buy the goodwill of their constituents by demonstrating that they are able to bring home the bacon?
Ironically, our representatives already written such a rule; but seem to use it only selectively. Here is an example of how The House has already defined and prohibited earmarks in specific resolutions:
H.R.2701 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Reported in House):
SEC. 105. PROHIBITION ON EARMARKS.
(a) In General- Nothing in the classified Schedule of Authorizations, a report of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives or the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate to accompany the bill H.R. 2701 of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, a joint statement of the managers accompanying a conference report on such bill, or the classified annex to this Act, shall be construed to authorize or require the expenditure of funds for a congressional earmark.
(b) Congressional Earmark Defined- In this section, the term `congressional earmark’ means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives or a Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality, or congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.
My proposal is quite simple. Our elected representatives in the House and Senate should step up and propose legislation to codify the above rule to apply to the entire appropriations process. The power to implement this rule already exists in both the House and the Senate, as they are constitutionally authorized to define their own rules and procedures. The question remains, do they have the intestinal fortitude to do so?
To ease the pain of “Pork Barrel withdrawal” I would add, as a means for representatives to fight for funding for their individual states, a separate appropriations bill dedicated to appropriations specifically ear marked by members of Congress. Let them make their individual requests in the light of day and go on record with their votes. Perhaps in this manner we can better monitor the potentially wasteful spending that takes place today.
Honestly do we really need to spend “$25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy?” (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/troop-funds-diverted-to-pet-projects/)
Deficit Reduction: Stealth Legislation
“On Thursday (10/22/09), the U.S. Senate passed legislation that expanded the civil rights-era hate crime law, making it a federal crime to physically assault an individual based on their sexual orientation…
… After years of being defeated in Congress, the hate crimes bill was attached to a $680 billion defense authorization bill to assure passage.”
media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2009/10/26/News/Hate-Crime.Prevention.Act.Passes.In.Congress-3812334.shtml
No matter your personal position on the issue of hate crimes legislation, clearly there is no direct tie between hate crimes and defense appropriations. This legislative “slight of hand”, including a piece of legislation that on its own would face serious debate into an appropriations bill that many would feel unwilling to vote against, is another political tactic that must be changed.
The tactic is clearly an abuse of the legislative process, and opens the door to not only questionable laws, but additional wasteful spending.
Congress must stop using this tactic to avoid honest debate on issues. As with Congressional earmark, it is within their authority to change the rules so that such tactics may not be employed going forward. House rules should be re-written to allow members in opposition to such “stealth” legislation the right to offer a motion to strip the specific legislation from any bill under consideration by a simple voice vote on the floor. In this manner critical appropriations can move forward and honest debate can be held on the legislation in question.
A Presidential line item veto has been rightly ruled un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court on the basis that it would undermine the powers granted to Congress. In line with that ruling, Congress must exercise its powers and develop a line item veto mechanism within its own process. Laws may be developed in committees for reasons of productivity and efficiency, but they should be debated and resolved only after the full house membership has had an opportunity to take action. The current rules have delegated far too much power to a small group of party loyalist on committees and thus denied each of us the full representation of our views by the officials we elected.
Deficit Reduction: Federal Payroll
The total Federal Government payroll at November 2008 was $13,516,103,000. The Executive Branch accounted for 97% of this amount. Every dollar spent on payroll was approved by Congress during the appropriations process.
(http://opm.gov/feddata/html/2008/november/table9.asp)
While the Federal Government is engaged in the process of controlling payroll at those private companies that benefited from tax payer bailouts, it should also begin looking at ways to reduce the payroll in its own operations. With total civilian employment of 2,040,282, clearly there is some room for reduction.
Congress should direct the Office of Personnel Management to conduct a survey of all civilian employees to determine how many can be reduced by attrition (those eligible for retirement in each of the next five years) and develop a plan for operating without replacing those staff. In addition, Congress should look for opportunities to eliminate duplication of efforts across all departments. A reduction of only 10% in payroll costs would produce $1,351,610,300 in expense reduction, roughly 1% of the current budget deficit. Clearly this would not produce a significant reduction to the deficit, but it would send the message that the continued growth of Federal employment will not be continued.
The More Difficult Challenge
The above three suggestions are merely a starting point for the fundamental changes that must take place.
Serious and sustainable improvement of our financial position will require that our elected representatives begin to honestly debate the very role of our nation in the greater world. Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has accepted the role of “leader of the free world”. We have spent untold trillions providing a military security blanket for many free nations. We have shed far too much blood in the cause of freedom, or sadly in misguided attempts to advance our own agenda in foreign lands. The time has come to consider the role we, the people, see for our nation and for our representatives to re-align our national priorities and spending to assume that role.
On the domestic front, just as serious a discussion needs to take place. We must decide, and define what the role of the Federal Government is as compared to State Government roles.
Until we define our role in the world, and our domestic priorities, we cannot define our spending priorities. The time to have these discussions is now.