Against All Washington

 

I listened to Steve Bannon interview the Representatives from Montana, Arizona, and Virginia last night on his evening show.  They were the most sensible people I have heard in Washington in a long time. They want regular order.

Washington is now like a functional alcoholic, but their addiction is printing money. If you are an addict, you have two choices — admit you have a problem or wait for circumstances to cause disaster.

Washington, as a whole, prefers to wait for circumstances to cause disaster.  These guys want to address the problem.  Either approach is extremely painful.  I personally am in favor of addressing the problem now.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 30 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Frank Hamburger Coolidge
    Frank Hamburger
    @FrankHamburger

    I spent 14 years of my career working at the Federal level. In none of those years did congress follow regular order. The inefficiencies, budget gyrations and rework costs  required to manage long term projects and programs amidst this chaos are significant and underappreciated. 

    • #1
  2. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    People want “Regular Order,” and the end to be dictated to by a majority, or in the case of the so-called “Freedom Causus” and end to being dictated to by the minority.

    • #2
  3. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    People want “Regular Order,” and the end to be dictated to by a majority, or in the case of the so-called “Freedom Causus” and end to being dictated to by the minority.

    Gary, you are the minority in the Republican Party today and you have no difficulty dictating to the majority. If they are the “so-called  ‘Freedom  Caucus,'” you are a “so-called” Republican. You don’t support Republican nominees in your home state. Your slam against the FC is the pot calling the kettle black.

    • #3
  4. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    People want “Regular Order,” and the end to be dictated to by a majority, or in the case of the so-called “Freedom Causus” and end to being dictated to by the minority.

    Gary, you are the minority in the Republican Party today and you have no difficulty dictating to the majority. If they are the “so-called ‘Freedom Caucus,’” you are a “so-called” Republican. You don’t support Republican nominees in your home state. Your slam against the FC is the pot calling the kettle black.

    I voted a straight Republican ticket, except for Tom Horne and except for candidates who were promoting the 2020 election fantasy.  All of the Republicans I voted for won.

    I hope that our next Governor in 2026 will be Republican Kimberly Yee who won a 55.7% landslide last November.

    I hope that our next senator in 2024 will be a Republican like Doug Ducey or Tucson Congressman Juan Ciscomani who don’t promote the 2020 election fantasy.

    • #4
  5. Boney Cole Member
    Boney Cole
    @BoneyCole

    Perhaps we should have a discussion about the pros and cons of regular order.  The complaint of the “20” is that under regular “disorder” bills are written by the staff of the speaker, and the house is given about 30 minutes to read them before voting.  Under regular order, bills move through committees to the floor to be voted on.   Which is better? 

    • #5
  6. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    Boney Cole: They want regular order. 

    In theory, regular order including an amendment process should provide a more efficient government.  Unfortunately the very few people in our country that *want* inefficiency are in positions of power in Congress or their benefactors.

    • #6
  7. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    This is a good time to force some reforms on our government.

    The 1.7 trillion spending bill funds the government lavishly until October 2024. If the pattern of this century continues, there’s no need for the House to do anything until they pass another omnibus bill at the end of September.

    So, there is no pressure to pick a speaker for months. Those of you who are anxious to start the hearings and drive your enemies before you have no precedents from history to base the actions you are expecting upon.

    • #7
  8. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    Boney Cole: They want regular order.

    In theory, regular order including an amendment process should provide a more efficient government. Unfortunately the very few people in our country that *want* inefficiency are in positions of power in Congress or their benefactors.

    Efficient, no.

    Representative, yes.

    Compliant with constitutional duty, yes.

    A symptom of a healthy law abiding society, yes.

    And a budget passed in regular order might actually be able to see fiscal balance in the distance.

    • #8
  9. Boney Cole Member
    Boney Cole
    @BoneyCole

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    This is a good time to force some reforms on our government.

    The 1.7 trillion spending bill funds the government lavishly until October 2024. If the pattern of this century continues, there’s no need for the House to do anything until they pass another omnibus bill at the end of September.

    So, there is no pressure to pick a speaker for months. Those of you who are anxious to start the hearings and drive your enemies before you have no precedents from history to base the actions you are expecting upon.

    My understanding is that the next critical issue is the debt ceiling.  It only becomes mandatory to raise it when we approach the current ceiling.  This will probably happen before the end of September.  In any event, we have to have an appropriation bill ready by the end of September, so we need to start now, especially if regular order is restored.
    But I agree, we have time to pick the right speaker, and bring order back to the current chaotic House.

    • #9
  10. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    People want “Regular Order,” and the end to be dictated to by a majority, or in the case of the so-called “Freedom Causus” and end to being dictated to by the minority.

    Gary, you are the minority in the Republican Party today and you have no difficulty dictating to the majority. If they are the “so-called ‘Freedom Caucus,’” you are a “so-called” Republican. You don’t support Republican nominees in your home state. Your slam against the FC is the pot calling the kettle black.

    A Significant Majority of Republican Voters Agree With the GOP Rebels

     

    • #10
  11. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    People want “Regular Order,” and the end to be dictated to by a majority, or in the case of the so-called “Freedom Causus” and end to being dictated to by the minority.

    Gary, you are the minority in the Republican Party today and you have no difficulty dictating to the majority. If they are the “so-called ‘Freedom Caucus,’” you are a “so-called” Republican. You don’t support Republican nominees in your home state. Your slam against the FC is the pot calling the kettle black.

    I voted a straight Republican ticket, except for Tom Horne and except for candidates who were promoting the 2020 election fantasy.

    ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’

     

    • #11
  12. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    Efficient, no.

     

    Smaller government is almost invariably more efficient.

    • #12
  13. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    Efficient, no.

     

    Smaller government is almost invariably more efficient.

    Oh, you sweet summer child.

    • #13
  14. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Most Republicans are in favor of reducing  the size of the Federal government and eliminating many areas now inappropriately under federal purview and influence. A very excessively large part of federal labor is now expended broadening and defending this, as pointed out by @frankhamburger in #1.

    A return to regular order in the House will help with stopping this runaway train.

    • #14
  15. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Most Republicans are in favor of reducing the size of the Federal government and eliminating many areas now inappropriately under federal purview and influence.

    Citizen Republicans, right? Not elected Republicans?

     

    • #15
  16. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I don’t think most American voters in 2020 and 2022 were aware(even those with a basic understanding of the regular order of the process) that Pelosi had every legislative action moved to the floor without any formal(regular) committee action.

    • #16
  17. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I voted a straight Republican ticket, except for Tom Horne and except for candidates who were promoting the 2020 election fantasy. All of the Republicans I voted for won.

    I hope that our next Governor in 2026 will be Republican Kimberly Yee who won a 55.7% landslide last November.

    I hope that our next senator in 2024 will be a Republican like Doug Ducey or Tucson Congressman Juan Ciscomani who don’t promote the 2020 election fantasy.

    I know you identfy as Republican. Just like Catlin Jenner identifies as female. I believe both of you are equally sincere. And just as correct.

    • #17
  18. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    Efficient, no.

     

    Smaller government is almost invariably more efficient.

    And less expensive. 

    • #18
  19. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    Boney Cole: They want regular order.

    In theory, regular order including an amendment process should provide a more efficient government. Unfortunately the very few people in our country that *want* inefficiency are in positions of power in Congress or their benefactors.

    They can’t really have regular order because they only “work” three days a week.

    • #19
  20. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Most Republicans are in favor of reducing the size of the Federal government and eliminating many areas now inappropriately under federal purview and influence. A very excessively large part of federal labor is now expended broadening and defending this, as pointed out by @ frankhamburger in #1.

    A return to regular order in the House will help with stopping this runaway train.

    My grandfather used to say that if you want a day’s worth of work done, hire a boy. If you want a half day’s worth of work done, hire two boys. If you don’t want any work to get done, hire three boys. 

    • #20
  21. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Most Republicans are in favor of reducing the size of the Federal government and eliminating many areas now inappropriately under federal purview and influence. A very excessively large part of federal labor is now expended broadening and defending this, as pointed out by @ frankhamburger in #1.

    A return to regular order in the House will help with stopping this runaway train.

    My grandfather used to say that if you want a day’s worth of work done, hire a boy. If you want a half day’s worth of work done, hire two boys. If you don’t want any work to get done, hire three boys.

    Well, I’ll tell you a little story that applies right here on this topic. I went into a government executive role for multiple reasons (to support a growing family as a major recession approached) in 1971, one of which was to see if I could have an effect on trying to reduce the number of checks overwhelming the banking industry. In the mid-seventies I took a position with the Bureau of Government Financial Operations (BGFO). That organization had some major operational responsibilities as the name implies. They included overseeing the issuance of all government payments (at that time checks) and resolving claims of non-receipt, maintaining a banking function to receive deposits of government revenues, and maintaining a complete governmentwide accounting system for all agency budgets. I first was there to manage the project to convert government check payments to electronic payments, we called this direct deposit and Social Security payments was our first application converted. I think we still had eleven field disbursing offices at the time, eight in the states and three overseas. The SS payments took a few years and then we moved to other applications. In 1981, I took a position as Regional Disbursing Officer in Kansas City and in 1983 I became the Chief Disbursing Officer over all government payments in Washington. 

    In the course of these events, we took a payments and claims operation requiring approaching two thousand people to produce and mail tens of millions of checks in those eleven offices to an electronic funds transfer operation requiring a single disbursing office with fewer than two hundred people. I don’t recall the cost figures of budget reductions in operations and postage but it was huge.  The Department of the Treasury never relinquished any part of that already existing budget. New financial functions with needed oversight were created.

    This is how a bureaucracy sustains itself and grows. Today we can see these new functions in the connections with IRS and in proposals for digital banking.

     

    • #21
  22. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Boney Cole (View Comment):

    Perhaps we should have a discussion about the pros and cons of regular order. The complaint of the “20” is that under regular “disorder” bills are written by the staff of the speaker, and the house is given about 30 minutes to read them before voting. Under regular order, bills move through committees to the floor to be voted on. Which is better?

    Anyone in the House who is not in favor of getting more time to review the bills before voting on them is an idiot. 

    The House needs a more practical bill-review process. 

    No legislation should exceed 300 pages. That’s a decent length to ensure consistency and clarity. I think even that is too long. But it would be a good start.

     

     

    • #22
  23. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Most Republicans are in favor of reducing the size of the Federal government and eliminating many areas now inappropriately under federal purview and influence. A very excessively large part of federal labor is now expended broadening and defending this, as pointed out by @ frankhamburger in #1.

    A return to regular order in the House will help with stopping this runaway train.

    My grandfather used to say that if you want a day’s worth of work done, hire a boy. If you want a half day’s worth of work done, hire two boys. If you don’t want any work to get done, hire three boys.

    Thanks for the memory. My Dad, who back in the 60s hired high school boys to work afternoons in his grocery store, used to say, “One boy is a boy. Two boys is half a boy. And three boys is no boy at all.” Heh.

    • #23
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Boney Cole: Washington is now like a functional alcoholic, but their addiction is printing money. If you are an addict, you have two choices — admit you have a problem or wait for circumstances to cause disaster.

    *** B I N G O ***

    It’s impossible to control spending under a discretionary central bank regime.

    It’s also hard to effect many other conservative things in this scenario.

    Nobody cares.

    • #24
  25. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    “Public goods” only. 

    Again, nobody cares. 

    Every government actuarial system is a nuclear bomb that will go off at some point. They are all systems for intergenerational theft. Everybody is going to care the hard way, someday. lol 

     

    • #25
  26. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Both red eye radio and Ben Shapiro yesterday talked about how the public doesn’t really want to limit spending. The red eye radio one was about 20 minutes in.

    If you want conservatism and libertarian to make progress you have to have free interest rates.

    • #26
  27. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    • #27
  28. Kevin Schulte Member
    Kevin Schulte
    @KevinSchulte

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Tucker is dead on.  

    • #28
  29. The Cynthonian Member
    The Cynthonian
    @TheCynthonian

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Most Republicans are in favor of reducing the size of the Federal government and eliminating many areas now inappropriately under federal purview and influence. A very excessively large part of federal labor is now expended broadening and defending this, as pointed out by @ frankhamburger in #1.

    A return to regular order in the House will help with stopping this runaway train.

    My grandfather used to say that if you want a day’s worth of work done, hire a boy. If you want a half day’s worth of work done, hire two boys. If you don’t want any work to get done, hire three boys.

    Well, I’ll tell you a little story that applies right here on this topic. I went into a government executive role for multiple reasons (to support a growing family as a major recession approached) in 1971, one of which was to see if I could have an effect on trying to reduce the number of checks overwhelming the banking industry. In the mid-seventies I took a position with the Bureau of Government Financial Operations (BGFO). That organization had some major operational responsibilities as the name implies. They included overseeing the issuance of all government payments (at that time checks) and resolving claims of non-receipt, maintaining a banking function to receive deposits of government revenues, and maintaining a complete governmentwide accounting system for all agency budgets. I first was there to manage the project to convert government check payments to electronic payments, we called this direct deposit and Social Security payments was our first application converted. I think we still had eleven field disbursing offices at the time, eight in the states and three overseas. The SS payments took a few years and then we moved to other applications. In 1981, I took a position as Regional Disbursing Officer in Kansas City and in 1983 I became the Chief Disbursing Officer over all government payments in Washington.

    In the course of these events, we took a payments and claims operation requiring approaching two thousand people to produce and mail tens of millions of checks in those eleven offices to an electronic funds transfer operation requiring a single disbursing office with fewer than two hundred people. I don’t recall the cost figures of budget reductions in operations and postage but it was huge. The Department of the Treasury never relinquished any part of that already existing budget. New financial functions with needed oversight were created.

    This is how a bureaucracy sustains itself and grows. Today we can see these new functions in the connections with IRS and in proposals for digital banking.

     

    In any large organization, whether government or non-, budgets are fungible.   Horse trading and shifting priorities, plus the institution prerogative to survive and grow, are the only constants. 

    • #29
  30. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The Cynthonian (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Most Republicans are in favor of reducing the size of the Federal government and eliminating many areas now inappropriately under federal purview and influence. A very excessively large part of federal labor is now expended broadening and defending this, as pointed out by @ frankhamburger in #1.

    A return to regular order in the House will help with stopping this runaway train.

    My grandfather used to say that if you want a day’s worth of work done, hire a boy. If you want a half day’s worth of work done, hire two boys. If you don’t want any work to get done, hire three boys.

    Well, I’ll tell you a little story that applies right here on this topic. I went into a government executive role for multiple reasons (to support a growing family as a major recession approached) in 1971, one of which was to see if I could have an effect on trying to reduce the number of checks overwhelming the banking industry. In the mid-seventies I took a position with the Bureau of Government Financial Operations (BGFO). That organization had some major operational responsibilities as the name implies. They included overseeing the issuance of all government payments (at that time checks) and resolving claims of non-receipt, maintaining a banking function to receive deposits of government revenues, and maintaining a complete governmentwide accounting system for all agency budgets. I first was there to manage the project to convert government check payments to electronic payments, we called this direct deposit and Social Security payments was our first application converted. I think we still had eleven field disbursing offices at the time, eight in the states and three overseas. The SS payments took a few years and then we moved to other applications. In 1981, I took a position as Regional Disbursing Officer in Kansas City and in 1983 I became the Chief Disbursing Officer over all government payments in Washington.

    In the course of these events, we took a payments and claims operation requiring approaching two thousand people to produce and mail tens of millions of checks in those eleven offices to an electronic funds transfer operation requiring a single disbursing office with fewer than two hundred people. I don’t recall the cost figures of budget reductions in operations and postage but it was huge. The Department of the Treasury never relinquished any part of that already existing budget. New financial functions with needed oversight were created.

    This is how a bureaucracy sustains itself and grows. Today we can see these new functions in the connections with IRS and in proposals for digital banking.

     

    In any large organization, whether government or non-, budgets are fungible. Horse trading and shifting priorities, plus the institution prerogative to survive and grow, are the only constants.

    There is only one solution. There has always been only one solution. 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.