Breaking: Economics 101 Still in Effect
Dairy farmers are working lobbying hard to ensure they get their hands on more of your money. Apparently, changes made last year to the Milk Income Loss Contract — mainly to take account of rising feed costs — were not enough to stem the losses.
The Senate recently voted to give the USDA an extra $350 million for dairy farmers’ support. The House left dairy support out of its appropriations bill, so the two chambers are working on the compromise now (prediction: the taxpayer will get screwed).
Here’s an ironic quote from a Brownfield news post yesterday (linked to above). It’s Missouri Dairy Association Chairman Larry Purdom on how to bring prices back up:
“Our feeling is that if [USDA] would buy some cheese and product that’s in storage…hanging over our heads, depressing prices,” Purdom tells Brownfield from his farm at Purdy, Missouri, “we feel like the prices would start moving on their own if we didn’t have this surplus.”
More on U.S. dairy policy here.
Filed under: Tax and Budget Policy; Trade and Immigration
Congressional Priorities and the FY2010 Budget Resolution
Yesterday the House and Senate passed a bloated $3.5 trillion budget blueprint for fiscal year 2010. According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), “What is important to us as a nation is reflected in this budget. It’s a very happy day for our country.”
Included in the blueprint is language that calls for an equal pay raise between military employees and civilian federal employees. President Obama had originally proposed slightly higher pay for members of the armed services. The exact pay raise for bureaucrats will be determined in the appropriations process, but it’s likely to be a hike of anywhere from 2.9% to 3.9%. This would come on top of last year’s 3.9% raise.
Omitted from the blueprint was language included in the Senate version by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) that would have “required agency managers to report to Congress within 90 days of the bill’s passage on any programs that are ‘duplicative, inefficient or failing, with recommendations for eliminating and consolidating these programs.’” A simple report to be issued by the agencies themselves. That’s it. There would be no guarantee that anything would actually be cut or consolidated.
Is it really a happy day for our country when Congress passes a blueprint to add another $1 trillion plus to the skyrocketing national debt? Is it really good for the struggling economy that the parasitic bureaucrats already living comfortably at the expense of the productive members of society are going to get another fat pay raise? Is it really “important to us as a nation” to make sure federal agencies are not instructed to pick out the particularly woeful programs under their watch?
It may be a happy day for politicians and bureaucrats, but it’s another kick in the teeth for taxpayers.
The Beginnings of Earmark Transparency
Under reforms announced in March, House members have to publicly declare the earmarks they’re requesting from the Appropriations Committee. Most of the requests have now been published and WashingtonWatch.com has assembled a state-by-state catalogue of links to Members’ earmark requests.
Getting earmark requests published is progress. Getting them published in uniform, machine-readable formats would allow the public to do really thorough oversight of all the projects that Members of Congress think federal taxpayer dollars should go to.
In December, we had a policy forum called “Just Give Us the Data!” where we explored some of the current issues in government transparency.
Filed under: Government and Politics; Tax and Budget Policy; Telecom, Internet & Information Policy
A Flagging Obama Transparency Effort
President Obama made some very firm commitments about transparency as a campaigner. Among other things, he promised to post bills online for five days before he signs them. This promise has been fulfilled just once – and in that case, only arguably.
The Obama campaign Web site promised “Sunlight Before Signing:”
Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”
To a roar of approval, President Obama pledged on the campaign trail: “[W]hen there is a bill that ends up on my desk as a president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing.”
Here’s a look at the White House’s uneven efforts to fulfill that promise:
Of the eleven bills President Obama has signed, only six have been posted on Whitehouse.gov. None have been posted for a full five days after presentment from Congress.
Filed under: Government and Politics; Telecom, Internet & Information Policy
Let’s Be Fiscally Responsible, Starting Tomorrow
In his famous book, Confessions, the 5th-century theologian Augustine wrote that he used to pray before his conversion, “Lord, make me chaste, but not just yet.”
That quote came to mind as I read the news a moment ago that President Obama plans to sign the $410 billion catch-all appropriations bill even though it contains 8,500 “earmarks” that will cost taxpayers nearly $8 billion.
Recall that as a candidate, Obama said he and Democratic leaders in Congress would change the “business as usual” practice of stuffing spending bills with pet projects. Those earmarks, submitted by individual members to fund obscure projects in their own districts and states, typically become law without any debate or transparency.
Saying he would sign the “imperfect bill,” President Obama offered guidelines to curb earmarks … in the future. “The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past,” he said. “So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability.”
Lord, make us fiscally responsible, but not just yet.
Republicans, Democrats, and Appropriators…and Pork
I’m sympathetic to the oft-repeated saying that there are really three parties in Washington: Republicans, Democrats, and Appropriators. This situation is likely to be demonstrated this evening when Republican members of the Senate Appropriations Committee provide enough votes for Democratic Sen. Harry Reid to close off debate and proceed to final passage of the pork-laden $410 billion fy2009 omnibus appropriations bill.
Greasing the skids for bigger government will be almost $8 billion in earmarks contained in the bill. Fox News is pointing out that almost all of the Republican Senators expected or likely to support the Democratic measure stand to deliver quite a bit of pork to constituents and special interests. Not coincidentally, all of the senators named, except Sen. Snowe of Maine, are appropriators. As a matter of fact, if you look at the top 20 senators (both parties) in terms of dollars of earmarks secured for this bill, 15 are appropriators.
Bottom line: Appropriators love spending and they particularly love pork. Sen. Snowe just likes the government spending other people’s money.
**Update: Cloture was invoked on a 62-35 vote and the legislation subsequently passed by voice vote. Every single Democratic member of the Senate Appropriation Committee voted for cloture. Republican appropriators Sens. Cochran, Specter, Bond, Shelby, Alexander, and Murkowski voted yes; Sens. McConnell, Gregg, Bennett, Hutchison, Brownback, Collins, and Voinovich voted no. Thus, without the support of these Republican appropriators, the bill would have been effectively killed. Of the top 20 recipients of earmarks in the bill, only 2 — Sens. Inhofe and McConnell — voted no.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on YouTube
Cato Tweets