« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

House GOP Appropriators Continue to Grow Government

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  April 19th, 2012 at 10:45 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It’s time we invoke a new rule when discussing the federal budget:  don’t focus on spending cuts; focus on limiting the size of government.  All too often we get caught up in dollar figures of various government programs and agencies, instead of focusing on their imperative to exist in the first place.

The first step in approaching a spending bill is to determine if the given venture is constitutionally sound.  If the answer is no, there’s nothing more to debate.  The second step is to determine if that venture, which is constitutionally sound, is helpful or harmful.  Needless to say, if it is harmful to the public then it should be scuttled.  Finally, once the constitutional rationale and the imperative for the venture are established, we can discuss the funding level of that venture.

The case in point is the Energy-Water appropriations bill, which funds the Department of Energy and parts of the Department of Interior.  There is no reason for the DOE to exist.  Period.  The nuclear program could easily be transferred to another part of the federal government, while we eliminate all of the wasteful programs that have not only failed to increase our energy supply, but encumbered its growth over the past few decades.  Now that Republicans have focused so much attention on merely trimming the DOE budget, it turns out that they failed to cut anything!

CQ reports that the Energy-Water bill passed out of the Energy-Water Appropriations subcommittee yesterday by voice vote actually appropriates $32.1 billion, an $88 million increase above fiscal 2012 levels.  But here is the most egregious part of the bill:

Frelinghuysen [the subcommittee chairman] said the legislation would provide $1 billion to “strengthen” Energy Department programs focused on determining the causes and impacts of high gas prices in the future, a $36 million boost from current levels. It also would provide $554 million for fossil energy research and development, including a new $25 million shale oil program “to both increase the efficiency and improve the impacts of shale oil recovery,” he said.

So we are giving the DOE $1 billion to focus on determining the causes of high gas prices.  Why don’t they look in the mirror!  We know why gas prices are high.  The American and global economies run on energy, and with demand increasing, we need to increase our supply.  The DOE and other branches of government have promoted green energy and have hindered the private sector from developing our resources.  That’s why gas prices are high.  We don’t need to spend $1 billion to study the issue.

In addition, why should we fund fossil fuel research programs?  We should oppose government promotion of fossil fuels just like we oppose their peddling of green energy.  Let the private sector handle the R&D.  This is why we should abolish the DOE.  We don’t need more regulations on energy development, nor do we need any help or subsidies from them either.  Of course, the bill contains $1.5 billion for “energy efficiency and renewable energy programs” as well.

With members like this on the appropriations committee, we will never reduce the size of government – even to pre-Obama levels.  Another disconcerting problem that we will continue to focus on is the fact that many of these guys come from red districts.  Here is the roster for that subcommittee along with their scores from Heritage Action and the PVI of their districts:

Rodney Frelinghuysen - Chairman (NJ-5 R+7) – 46
Jerry Lewis – (CA-41 R+10)  -56
Mike Simpson (ID-2  R+17) – 53
Denny Rehberg (MT-At Large R+7) – 61
Rodney Alexander (LA-5 R+14) – 52
Steve Womack (AR-3  R+16) – 58
Alan Nunnelee (MS-1 R+14) – 73

If we continue to elect members from conservative districts who underperform so dramatically, and place them on the appropriations committee, we will never ever limit the size of government.

Amazingly, speaking in reference to the draft legislation, Rep. Frelinghuysen said that “some of us believe it is time to pull the government back from such a strong involvement in the private sector.”

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • ss396

    The first step in approaching a spending bill is to determine if the given venture is constitutionally sound.

    Every bill taken up by the majority party will be deemed constitutionally sound at the time of enactment. Whether the courts agree is another matter, but that comes later. But I would not support any requirement for proposed legislation to be cleared through the court before enactment. Disgusted as I am at the constitutional ignorance of the seated Dems, I am loathe to subordinate the legislative branch to the judicial branch.

    The second step is to determine if that venture, which is constitutionally sound, is helpful or harmful.

    This is an entirely subjective assessment by the party in power. It becomes a question of helpful / harmful to whom? to which identity? to which constituency? In the progressive’s eyes, cutting DoD and transferring its funds to social programs both prevents harm and promotes general domestic welfare. To a conservative, this leaves a dangerous power vacuum that invites malfeasant mischief and adventurism abroad while it enfeebles and enslaves the domestic recipient of this general welfare.

    Assessing constitutionality and helpfulness are necessary steps to the enactment of any legislation, and they should be attached to every appropriations bill in writing. I’m going to take this opportunity to climb onto the soapbox and once again propose that, in addition to the foregoing, all legislation must include a written assessment of why the proposed acts cannot and should not be accomplished by the individual States.

    • davesinsanantonio

      by making sure the party who has been abusing the Constitution never gets back in power. And, that those who stray toward questionable constitutionality on our side similarly have to go looking for a real job elsewhere. And, the place to start with those people is when they are running for, or occupying, lower level offices. Identify them early and don’t let them get the power to become a threat to the country.

      • gmhunt

        Both parties abuse the Constitution, both use the Constitution when it suits them and ignore the Constitution when it suits them……just depends on their agenda.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jacobson get2djnow

    Is anyone surprised? In fact, the fat cats, meaning the influence peddlers on the GOP side of this stinking sinkhole we’re forced to call a legislative body, just want to water their side of the garden with tax dollars. The GOP isn’t at all interested in beating the heck out of the Demonrats for the purposes of limiting the size of gubmint, they just want the power. It’s disgusting! When read Trent Lott’s comments on one of the few honorable people in the Senate, Jim Demint, I wanted to punch that jerkoff in the nose.

    So, I guess I’m saying I’m not all that surprised.

  • clintonformccain

    If prior Congressional appropriations had been limited to annual increases of less than one half of one percent. It seems like beating GOP appropriators for doing just that in this year’s appropriations is a little unfair.

  • citizenkh

    comes from a “Christian Conservative” district, not a “conservative” one. The area is still heavily suffering from Huey P. Long withdrawal symptoms. Jindal did not do so well there in 2003, but did so in 2007 due his constant speaking in churches throughout all of North Louisiana. The turnabout in votes had nothing to do with anything else.

  • skorrent1

    A pretty sound support for Zero Base Budgets. Make the Agencies justify and prioritize each program, and the Departments justify and prioritize each agency. Set the budget at some % of expected GDP. It’s called Cut, Cap and Balance.

    Of course the fur would fly as the program directors/Agencies jockeyed for support, but at least the various political priorities would be out in the open.

  • dajeeps

    A rather huge one that is quite perplexing considering the choices we have in November for POTUS. The whole reason why I have resigned to voting Romney is to avoid being Greece, and well, I don’t have that much confidence it can be avoided, and I’m not even sure the progress toward that deplorable condition will even be slowed.

    I agree with the steps you’ve outlined here for how these things should be managed, as they embody nearly everything there was to my position that the proposed BBA would not improve our lot because the blatant abuse of the commerce clause would still exist and simply change form to make up for what government can’t spend by making others do it on its behalf. Our problems aren’t about the bottom line expenditures, but about the spending on assumed powers that don’t constitutionally exist that result in all kinds of distortions in the economy, housing/ mortgage/ financial crises surely are not excepted from the effects.

  • mirac777

    This is simply a mechanism to allow certain congressional criminals to inject earmark cash into bills in a quiet way. Do away with all subcommittees and make the bigshots on the real committee do the work, and then we can hold them directly accountable for this increase in debt-spending.

    I can just hear the ignorants during this election cycle , when asked why the DOE got massive increases in funding for “gas price studies” asking their constituents, just like Rubio did down here in Florida: “Is that really in that bill?” Big Government Grifters robbing the taxpayer to fund reelection campaigns and enrich cronies.That’s all this B/S is.

    There isn’t anyone from Florida on that list, otherwise I,d be calling the Grifters up and demanding to know just what they think they are doing with MY money here.

    Excellent information here Daniel, and thank you.

  • mirac777

    This is an increase OVER 2012 funding levels, which have skyrocketed in the last 5 years . I,d like to see it announced just how much of an increase it is over the 2007 levels. When we talk about big government getting bigger and more expensive, we should not be comparing this years amounts over last years, simply because they have increased gov’t spending tremendously since Obama and the fake democrats have been running roughshod over Congressional appropriations bills.( 2007-present, Congress and 2009-2012 Obama)

  • mirac777

    In June of 2007, House Democrats voted down four Republican amendments aimed at reducing the spending in the Energy-Water appropriations bill, defending increased funds for energy and other priorities. According to CQ, the four amendments sponsored by GOP conservatives would have reduced spending across the board, including one by Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that would have cut $1.3 billion of the $31.6 billion bill (H.R. 2641), bringing appropriations back to the fiscal 2007 levels. Democrats defended their funding increases, arguing that they were important investments that Republicans had neglected during their tenure.[36]

    In mid-July the House was expected to consider the $31.6 billion fiscal 2008 Energy-Water spending bill (HR 2641), which first came to the floor in June of 2007, but was held over for final action until earmarks could be added.

    On July 12, 2007, House appropriators approved almost $1.1 billion in member-requested earmarks to the fiscal 2008 Energy-Water appropriations bill.[37

  • http://www.ajharaldson.com lakeworthcane

    Everybody who’s posted here seems to agree that our public sectors–in this case the federal–are too large, consume too much money and have too much influence.

    We all agree that some federal agencies, departments and/or programs are unnecessary and, seeing as the federal public sector has both performed inefficiently and spent recklessly for a long while–markedly since the early 1970s–we’re looking for a change: not mere (relatively speaking) nickel-and-dime cost savings, but a dramatic reversal of a 40-year trend characterized primarily by obscene growth and over-spending.

    But the politicians aren’t following through, so now the questions arise: how do we get people who ran for office to get power and influence to reduce their power and influence? How do we get people who’ve lived to serve themselves do what’s best for others? How do we fundamentally change a system that’s always rewarded the worst among us so that it will reward the best?

  • ihateliberals

    Our current republican majority in the House is made up mostly of Left-Wing Republicans like John Boehner in the house and people like McConnell and McCain in the Senate. I use to call these people RINO’s but that term just doesn’t seem to fit these people. A RINO at least sometimes seems to be conservative. When you look at the Heritage Action numbers you will find that the current congress only votes conservative 40% of the time. That means that 60% of the time they vote with the Liberals. NO wonder the government is so screwed up and out of control. These Left-Wing Republicans have successfully intimidated the conservative blocks. I’m not sure how they have done this but it is a sad state of affairs. I have been a conservative all my life and I am thoroughly disgusted with the Republican Party and the GOP.

  • raybacliff

    Don’t focus on limiting the size of government. Don’t chase after how big government is. Focus on limiting what government can do. The Constitution doesn’t say government has to be small. It says government is limited.

    During the debates on the original Constitution, the convention wanted to limit the size of the standing army. Washington intervened and said that if they limit the size of the army they need to make sure that any army that attacks the US is limited in size too!

    The government needs to be big enough to do what it’s supposed to do and non existent for what it’s not supposed to do. Size has nothing to do with it. Since the founding, the size of the government has always grown when the country grew. The same holds true today. With every census there are more delegates to congress. It is what was intended. What was not intended is a government outside its limits.

    Congress needs to limit their laws to their limited powers.

    • shdwolf1

      we are willing to spend. NO ONE should have the power to vote themselves raises, perks, and bonuses. Those should all be decided on by the people. OMG, holding a public office should be a privilege, with enough compensation to cover basic needs while held, NOT a cash cow reward for having outspent and out bullied your opponents to obtain the prize position!
      If politicians were paid a capped wage that covers basic necessities ONLY, with no power to appropriate, earmark, redirect, or otherwise increase that wage, we’d get politicians who are there because they truly WANT to serve the people. As the system now stands, those jobs are pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, and encourages the most base and ruthless among us to strive for them. If the paycheck is the prize, we all lose.

  • shdwolf1

    If you or I were looking at the budget on a household scale, we’d be prioritizing what needs to be there, and what we’d like to have there. I believe we all have a “needs” budget, with things like food, shelter, transportation, and such. We also have a “wants” budget that basically modifies the “needs” list with nicer upgrades to basic services. I’d like a Ferrari, but the Chevy gets the job done. I’d like steak, but hamburger works. I’d like to go to the Bahama’s, but will settle for the water park.
    Basically, we look at what we have available to spend, and adjust what we can have to fit that budget. We don’t go out and get a loan so we can have luxuries we really can’t afford. We should not be trying to figure how to cut our “needs” budget to pay for our “wants” budget, and we need to stop confusing wants with needs. If your kid was trying to justify getting a new guitar, would you let him reason that YOU need to increase his allowance because he NEEDS that guitar? If he want’s to give money to his friends, or to help out one of the neighbors, should it come out of YOUR pocket?
    Unfortunately, that’s exactly what our government has done. They spend money like a kid with a credit card, even giving away billions to strangers you or I have never met, then tell us WE need to pay for it all. We don’t NEED to give billions to Egypt, or any of a host of other beneficiaries we currently finance. We need to get our own budgets under control, and STOP giving money we don’t have away. We also need to stop funding useless departments and agencies that do the same thing half a dozen others do, and don’t even do what they were created to do. Reducing dependence on foreign oil comes to mind. If the Dept of Energy can’t even do what they were created to do, it’s time to disband it and direct that money elsewhere. If our kids are not being educated, we need to get rid of that Educ dept, not throw more money at it. Our government should be solely focused on meeting our NEEDS, and let us as individuals decide if we wish to fund the WANTS…
    wouldn’t that be a radical concept; The president and congress have to submit their expense reports for approval to the American people? How much could we save taxpayers if they had to get OUR approval before taking vacations or getting perks on OUR dime? …hmmm…

  • shdwolf1

    We should be limiting what we allow our government to do. If a portion of it isn’t doing it’s job, or is redundant, it needs to go. Special privileges for elected officials need to STOP! No more special health plans, credit unions, vacations, expense accounts, and especially NO MORE being exempt from the very laws they enact on the rest of us. For that matter, existing laws need to be gone over and weeded out. Why do I need to pay license fees to the government for any and everything I do? Boat license, dog license, marriage license, hunting license, drivers license, builders license, vendors license, phone fees, road fees, fees to own a home, fees to sell a home, fees fees fees…A hundred years ago, we had virtually NO debt, and few of the fees we currently pay just to live here.
    The government is like a little kid put in charge of the family budget. They have no concept of limits or controls, and are not able to differentiate between a need and a want. As long as we allow them to remain in control, I don’t think it’s going to get any better. We need to step up and take control back, get rid of the wish based budgeting, and put limits back on how OUR taxes are spent. The answer is NOT taxing more, it’s cutting out the spending on things we don’t need and can’t afford!

  • WmCraig

    Focusing on appropriations will not stop the problems with too much spending. That is not to say that spending too much money isn’t the problem. I am only saying that if you want to fix what is wrong with appropriations you have to look past appropriations to a bigger goal, and put the ruling elite in the federal government in a position where they are willing to sacrifice spending to maintain other elements of their power.

    What is your thought about a repeal of the 16th Amendment and restoration of state authority over direct taxation. It is an idea that could have broad appeal to liberals and conservatives alike allowing citizens of the states to determine the level of direct government involvement in their lives, and limiting the control over that involvement to people elected in their own states.

    Even if it doesn’t come about right away, the threat alone could be enough to make appropriators and administrators in Washington think about downsizing government and returning power to the states as a way to maintain control over the direct tax revenue stream.

    What has made the progressives so effective is that they have a target far beyond the immediate reach of their power, and they keep pushing towards it, settling for the compromises we have been willing to offer. But the ultimate goal remains out there a strong central government run by an elite ruling class.

    Conservatives and Traditionalists need a big idea that fuels their approach to everything, and then we will be in a better position to extract compromises that actually do shrink the size of government and restore the liberties that have been taken from us by the gains of the progressives. One hundred years ago the Progressives rewrote our constitution to suit their objects by adding the 16th and 17th amendments. Repealing the 16th and 17th amendments I believe is the big idea that the majority of voters across the entire spectrum of political persuasions can get behind. It might be beyond our reach right now but it is a worthy goal in the march to restore American to the traditional republic our founders envisioned. .