Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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.
Published in General
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.
That is almost enough to make me want to drop out of the entire process.
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.
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”
“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.
I’d like to know how the Repubs elected in 2010 voted.
The List
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.
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?
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.
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.
I thought Kucinich was a co-sponsor. He didn’t even vote.
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.
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.
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”?
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.
Sorry, maybe I’m just misunderstanding what you mean, but I have to ask. Are you suggesting the Tea Party is “faux-conservative”?
Thus the problem, conservatives have nobody to represent them. The Republician Party are not conservatives, they only appear conservative when compared to Democrats.
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.
I became interested in politics in 2000, at the age of 50. Since then I have donated increasing amounts to the political fray, peaking in the 2010 election. After watching the selection of House leadership, followed by actions and lack of action on various initiatives like these, I reached a conclusion. The only real difference between the two parties is the speed at which we hit the wall, not the final destination. This year I have contributed $0 as a result.
While Michael Barone is correct in saying that significant change in control takes various election cycles, I simply do not see the will for the types of policy changes required by those that call the shots. We are fast running out of road and most of these guys seem to live in an alternate universe.
McClintock’s failed amendments are simply additions to a long list of examples that clearly show how blindly clueless our Congressional (both parties) leadership is.
Reading this I wish I could dismiss you as some crazed, bitter and disillusioned fool but unfortunately I have seen too much to indulge in such childishness.
There is a reason prophets are scorned, no one wishes to hear bad news. I am beginning to think Cassandra had it easy.
Spain has compelled a bailout from the ESM which Germany has not even ratified yet. No matter the assiduous attention given to Dancing With the Stars by fools, the World moves.
My Lord, even on Ricochet it is as if we are being forced to endure children. Are there actually individuals stupid enough to believe the Primary Dealers will continue to insure successful debt auctions regardless of what is happening in Washington? Forget Leftists and Statists are there actual Conservatives who are this stupid?
Does no one grow up anymore?
I’m going to jump in at this point and just comment on the original post:
I just want to say Hooray! Let’s elect more Republicans!
Find your Rep and vote them out (if needed) in Nov and tell them why
I just want to say Hooray! Let’s elect more Republicans! ·0 minutes ago
A cautious skepticism is one thing Mr. Cole and a French Revolution another.
I denigrate GOP failures at every opportunity, I have nothing but scorn for false Conservatives. Yet while you proclaim yourself to be a Libertarian I wonder if you are not an Anarchist.
I am forced to suspect that the temper-tanrum-throwing actions of the OWS crowd are more suited to your temperament.
Does the actual WORK of insuring freedom for US citizens in any way occupy your thoughts, or is this just some amusing puzzle you indulge yourself with while you attend to other affairs?
Yet while you proclaim yourself to be a Libertarian I wonder if you are not an Anarchist.
Wonder no more, my friend! I am absolutely, unambiguously, most certainly an anarchist.
A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B.
At least my future congressman, and current congresswoman voted for it. However, I have liked the Freshman congressmen Alan West and Danial Webster a lot but they voted against this. They have both gone way down in esteem as conservative congressmen from Florida.
Yet while you proclaim yourself to be a Libertarian I wonder if you are not an Anarchist.
Wonder no more, my friend! I am absolutely, unambiguously, most certainly an anarchist.
A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. ·13 minutes ago
Infuriating.
Clearly are not a fool but you choose to use your talents simply to play games and to taunt those who speak on principal.
Is this your best, is this all you are capable of?
Mockery, clever segues and games?
Why are you here Mr. Cole, what do you want?
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?
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. ·1 hour ago
They outsourced Nuclear Weapons manufacturing to Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India and Iran. To be honest I’m not sure a single Nuclear weapon has been constructed since the Energy dept came into existance under Carter.