House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
Cato analyst Tad DeHaven points to some depressing votes on amendments to the recent congressional appropriations for the Department of Energy. But wait -- the Department of Energy? If the GOP reps stuck to their principles, they would have voted for exactly zero appropriations for the DOE. What enumerated power authorizes the DOE? None! Get rid of it!
Anyway, I'm pretty sure DeHaven agrees with that fundamental point, but he was reporting on an even more depressing development. Not only did the GOP fail even to attempt to kill DOE, many Republicans joined with Democrats to maintain the department's worst corporate welfare programs. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) introduced an amendment to eliminate the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account at the Department of Energy and use the $1.45 billion in savings toward deficit reduction. But the House rejected McClintock’s amendment, with 107 Republicans joining every Democrat in opposition.
Then Rep. McClintock tried to get rid of the DOE loan guarantee program -- the very program that brought us Solyndra. He even got Dennis the Menace Kucinich to co-sponsor. This time 127 Republicans voted to maintain the program.
And these are the crazy, right wing fanatics of NYT fantasy. I can't think of a stronger argument in favor of a radical devolution of power to the states. Congress has a way of turning all but the most principled conservatives into statists.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '12
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
Actually, many Republicans in state legislatures are just as bad.
Rather than an argument for states' rights (which I strongly support), this is a very good argument for term limits.
Reduce the time that the capitol has to affect a good conservative, and he should stay more conservative. In theory, at least.
Oct '10
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
That is almost enough to make me want to drop out of the entire process.
Jul '10
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
This is another reason for some of Us Conservatives to throw Our hands in the air and say,"Screw it."
Then the party moves ever so left to recoup the lost votes.
Oct '10
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
Is this surprising? In a cartelized federal system certain States and or interest groups within States have a vested interest in monies flowing from the National to the State level. This is the system politicians want to maintain: Bringing home the bacon is how the system works! To use a Ricochet expression, "it's not a bug, it's a feature"
If you haven't already, listen to the Liberty Law Talk podcast with Michael Greve on his book "The Upside-Down Constitution"
Edited on June 10, 2012 at 3:04amAug '10
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
"Then Rep. McClintock tried to get rid of the DOE loan guarantee program -- the very program that brought us Solyndra. He even got Dennis the Menace Kucinich to co-sponsor. This time 127 Republicans voted to maintain the program."
I have been a McClintock supporter for more than 10 years. He is a true conservative. Why aren't their more like him? I mean "real conservatives" not just faux-conservative Tea Party, Paulian, birther kooks.
Sep '10
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
I'd like to know how the Repubs elected in 2010 voted.
Jul '10
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
The List
May '12
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
ConservativeWanderer: Actually, many Republicans in state legislatures are just as bad.
Rather than an argument for states' rights (which I strongly support), this is a very good argument for term limits.
I think the difference is that states aren't supposed to run deficits (I acknowledge California and Illinois throw this to the wind) so at least if a state wanted to have such boondoggles they also would have to pay for them.
Regarding term limits - we already have them, two year terms for reps and 6 years for senators. We have the government we elected and deserve.
Edited on June 10, 2012 at 3:01amJun '12
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
BrentB67
ConservativeWanderer: Actually, many Republicans in state legislatures are just as bad.
Rather than an argument for states' rights (which I strongly support), this is a very good argument for term limits.
I think the difference is that states aren't supposed to run deficits (I acknowledge California and Illinois throw this to the wind) so at least if a state wanted to have such boondoggles they also would have to pay for them.
Regarding term limits - we already have them, two year terms for reps and 6 years for senators. We have the government we elected and deserve. · 2 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
No, that's length of term, not number of terms they can serve. We have it for the President, why not for Congress?
May '12
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
ConservativeWanderer
BrentB67
ConservativeWanderer: Actually, many Republicans in state legislatures are just as bad.
Rather than an argument for states' rights (which I strongly support), this is a very good argument for term limits.
I think the difference is that states aren't supposed to run deficits (I acknowledge California and Illinois throw this to the wind) so at least if a state wanted to have such boondoggles they also would have to pay for them.
Regarding term limits - we already have them, two year terms for reps and 6 years for senators. We have the government we elected and deserve. · 2 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
No, that's length of term, not number of terms they can serve. We have it for the President, why not for Congress? · 1 minute ago
We elect them 1 term at a time.
Why do we keep voting for them? If we don't care enough to get involved then we deserve to have these life ling politicians feathering their bed with our tax dollars.
If we don't care enough about our republic hold those we elect accountable no amount of term limits is going to solve the problem.
Jun '10
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
I thought Kucinich was a co-sponsor. He didn't even vote.
Apr '11
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
BrentB67
ConservativeWanderer: Actually, many Republicans in state legislatures are just as bad.
Rather than an argument for states' rights (which I strongly support), this is a very good argument for term limits.
I think the difference is that states aren't supposed to run deficits (I acknowledge California and Illinois throw this to the wind) so at least if a state wanted to have such boondoggles they also would have to pay for them.
Regarding term limits - we already have them, two year terms for reps and 6 years for senators. We have the government we elected and deserve.
I'm not sure what you mean. Hamilton went almost this far, and some of his supporters endorsed what you're saying, but the idea was to thereby encourage the growth of the Federal Government, which I'm sure is not what you intend.
Most states have balanced budget amendments, and some of those have teeth, but none had them until Rhode Island adopted its amendment in 1842 and none of them actually prevent debt accumulating. The worst states have about 4x the Debt/GDP ratio of Wyoming, the best. similar enough to suggest a strong consensus.
Edited on June 10, 2012 at 3:32amAug '10
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
Term Limits + Permanent Bureaucracy = Disaster. California has term limits. It has a permanent bureaucracy. All we've seen in the time that California's term limits have been in effect is an increase of the power of special interests, who create the only paths to office and who have all the "expertise" on issues.
Apr '11
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
Sorry, maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you mean, but I have to ask. Are you suggesting the Tea Party is "faux-conservative"?
Jul '11
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
Thus the problem, conservatives have nobody to represent them. The Republician Party are not conservatives, they only appear conservative when compared to Democrats.
Mar '11
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
ConservativeWanderer: Actually, many Republicans in state legislatures are just as bad.
Rather than an argument for states' rights (which I strongly support), this is a very good argument for term limits.
Reduce the time that the capitol has to affect a good conservative, and he should stay more conservative. In theory, at least. · 10 hours ago
Elective public service was never meant to be a career choice. I believe the most effective term limit would be to exempt anyone in elective office from collecting a pension. This article describes the problem quite well.
Jul '11
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
Illiniguy
Elective public service was never meant to be a career choice. I believe the most effective term limit would be to exempt anyone in elective office from collecting a pension. This article describes the problem quite well. · 15 minutes ago
This is spot-on. Most politicians become careerists, looking to do whatever it takes to stay in office. Removing some of the benefits that make this more attractive would be a big start, and reduce the incentives that some people are looking for in their "service" would make public service what it should truly be: a sacrifice.
Instead, we're chastised if we don't laud our betters for the wonderful things they're doing to us - things they're doing roughly to us, bent over a pommel horse. The same reasons we have trillions in debt, a "budget" that spends 3.7 trillion when we take in 2.2 trillion, are the same reasons the re-election rates are so high - we give these clowns the power to sell votes.
Leviathan needs to be put back in its cage. It starts with firing the careerists at the ballot box.
Aug '10
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
Anneke9, just how many "faux-conservative Tea Party, Paulian, birther kooks" do you think there are?
You think it's normal for a Tea Partier or a Ron Paul supporter to be a birther?
You think it's normal for a Tea Partier or a Ron Paul supporter to be only "faux-conservative" (whatever that means)?
Why bother describing a group that exists mainly in the fevered imaginations of Leftists?
Or is anyone who isn't exactly the same type of conservative you are a "faux-conservative"?
Apr '11
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
Adam,
The DOE has responsibility for responsibility for "the design, testing and production of all nuclear weapons"
Sure you want to zero out this line item?
I hate it when conservatives (I am one) go off on rants without thinking through the consequences of what they are proposing. They just enable the media to spin them as ignorant boobs.
I understand what your core complaint is. I agree with it. But if I were a liberal reporter, the first question I would ask you is "why do you want to outsource the design of nuclear weapons?" and you would have no good answer.
Mar '11
Re: House Republicans Vote for Pork Wrapped In an Unconstitutional Department
Perhaps we could try, I don't know just thinking here, putting the responsibility back with the DoD where it belongs instead of having yet another unnecessary bureaucracy to no good purpose?
Edited on June 10, 2012 at 9:21pm