because it might lead the current House majority to expand the proper interpretation of Constitutional provisions.

Citing the part of Article 1, Section 8 that authorizes a bill might seem like a good idea. And perhaps starting in 1791 it would have helped preserve the limited nature of the federal government.

But the new House majority can’t get back there all in one step. It would be seen as extreme and likely lose its majority in 2012. For example, I think it is unconstitutional for Congress to promise money to the states on condition that they pass a certain law or act a certain way if the subject of the condition does not fall within the enumerated powers. Most of federal education law, including NCLB a GW Bush program, is justified that way. Using this interpretation, the tax and spend power becomes virtually unlimited. Yet the budget, and federal law, are riddled with such conditional grants, some of which are pretty popular. With the new Rule, the House majority must either enshrine in legislation the view that these conditional grants are constitutional, or wipe them all out at once.
Neither is very appealing.

Better to first stop making these conditional grants, and start replacing the existing grants with block grants, until we get to a point where we can wipe the rest out without causing too much of a firestorm.

On the surface, this appears to be helpful; there is so much more they could do with the procedure rules, but I definitely think this will help. has the “public” finally come around to their senses that govt. must stop spending what they don’t have?

and a couple of other clauses which I can’t think of at this time. John Conyers is Chair of the Judiciary Committee you know (as he reminds us below).

A rule change to allow the budget to be broken up into a few pieces would have led to more spending cuts than anything else. Because then you force the different parts of the government to be subject to a lot more spending scrutiny. When the budget appears in 1 piece than many just have to vote for it eventually to get the piece they need. In multiple pieces than most people’s piece isn’t into any individual budget and so they go to each budget chunk with a scalpel.

That is the rule the change I’m after. The only problem is that it elongates the process a lot. Which is a good thing in 2011, but in 2013 with a GOP president you may want more time to take on entitlements and a very long budget process may take up a lot of time.

The GOP House rules are a good step in the right direction. IMHO, a real change would repeal some of the Budget Act of 1974 which includes rules that basically require the President to spend everything Congress appropriates.

Before 1974, Presidents of either party could impound money on stuff they felt wasn’t necessary, allowing the President to have an active role in controlling deficit spending such as eliminating earmarks and pork. Minimally, they ought to say this sort of rule change might take effect in 2012. Let Obama come out of the closet in how he would (or wouldn’t) control spending before the next election…

These rules as written do not depend on Boehner being speaker. Who else in the house would be a better solid choice? Bachman! Pence! Others.

Awhile back someone on RedState floated the complementary idea that, in addition to citing the Constitutional authority permitting Congress to act; the bill should also contain an explanation of why the bill cannot or should not be accomplished by the individual States.

Here’s the current budget process: Last year we spent $125B on the Dept of State, and assumed that outlays would increase by 9.2% each year for the following 10 years. Thus, this year’s nominal State Dept Budget should be $125B x 1.092 = $136.5B. So…

Any proposed budget for the Department of State less than $136.5B is considered a “cut” — $126B is a CUT even tho it is MORE than we spent last year. Worse, any proposed budget MORE than $136.5B is considered a smaller increase (over the “baseline”) than we normal humans would compute it. See, suppose this year we budget $140B for the State Dept. Normal humans would say: well, 140/125 * 100% = 112% … that’s a 12% increase.

Congress says, no, the baseline for next year’s spending is $136.5B (even tho we “only” spent $125B in the current year), so a budget of $140B is only 140/136.5 * 100% = 102.6%, a 2.6% increase over that baseline. That’s ok, right? I mean, 2.6%? That’s barely keeping up with inflation…

Never mind that the 9.2% annual increase “baked into the cake” already included inflation adjustment…

Anyway, if a corporation did this, their board would be fired and the CEO and CFO would be in jail…but for Congress, this is “The Way Things Are Done”

THAT needs to change.

The entire budget of the United States need to be posted online down to the smallest possible line item. I want to know how much each bureaucrat in the Dept Of Education gets paid and how much they spend on paper clips. The only thing that should be exempt are some military and national security spending. I guarantee you that We the People could find hundreds of billions to cut if we knew where our money was going.

And we need bills online for a week, not just three days.

a woman, or a man, going shopping and buying a new dress that is outside the budget and when she gets home telling her husband how much money she saved by getting it on sale. The real problem is she spent money they did not have to spend, not how much she “saved”.
In the federal budget, it is the same issue. It is not where the money comes from, but how much is going out that matters. It really doesn’t matter if we cut tax rates anyway, because it is total revenue vs. total spending that determines the deficit and the debt. If we cut total spending to below revenue, no matter how much revenue there is, then the deficit disappears, and eventually so does the debt.
Congress has a real addiction to spending, often on stupid nonsense that any ordinary person can see, but their addiction causes them to do things that are harmful to the country to get the high of feeding their addiction. Cure, or at least curtail, the addiction, and the country will generate enough revenue to solve the debt issue. Keep spending, and the issue gets worse. And, raising tax rates to “pay for the addiction” is like selling the furniture and the car, and taking out a loan on the house, to finance a drug addiction–pretty soon there is nothing left to sell, or to tax!!!

They’re calling the rule change “Undemocratic”.

Video at [url=http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/fantastic-rep-elect-mike-kelly-r-pa-michele-bachmann-r-mn-smack-around-libs-weiner-and-wasserman-schultz-on-face-the-nation-video/]Gateway Pundit[/url]

(hope this link thingie works…)