RSC Unleashes Amendment Hell on Democrats
By Erick Posted in Congress — Comments (48) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If you turn on C-SPAN you'll see Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) fighting the Democrats on their earmarks and wasteful spending inside the Homeland Security Appropriation.
Below is just a taste of the hell Jeb and the RSC are unleashing at this very moment. Isn't it sad John Boehner wanted a corrupt porker like Ken Calvert on Appropriations instead of an RSC member like John Campbell?
Reduction Amendments:
Read on . . .
Title I: Limit the Bureaucracy Amendments (up to 13 amendments).
1) Reduce the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management to FY07 level (reduce by $9,961,000). If the amendment fails, offer the following four amendments to offices within that heading (amending the same account):
2) Reduce the Office of the Chief of Staff to FY07 level (reduce by $79,000).
3) Reduce the Office of the Executive Secretary to FY07 level (reduce by $138,000).
4) Reduce Office of Public Affairs to FY07 level (reduce by $300,000).
5) Reduce Office of General Counsel to FY07 level (reduce by $1,241,000).
6) Reduce the Office of the Under Secretary for Management (reduce by $13,331,000). If the amendment fails, offer the following five amendments to offices within that heading (amending the same account):
7) Reduce the Office of the Under Secretary for Management to FY07 level (reduce by $142,000).
8) Reduce the Office of Security to FY07 (reduce by $350,000).
9) Reduce the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer to FY07 level (reduce by $10,160,000).
10) Reduce Salaries and Expenses of the Chief Human Capitol Officer to FY07 level (reduce by $1,467,000).
11) Reduce Salaries and Expenses of the Chief Administrative Officer to FY07 level (reduce by $1,212,000).
12) Reduce the Chief Financial Officer to FY07 level (reduce by $6,045,000).
13) Reduce the Salaries and Expenses of the Chief Information Officer (reduce by $400,000).
Title II: Alteration of Bridges (1 amendment)
14) Eliminate funding for bridge alteration as requested (reduce by $16,000,000).
Title III: Grant Program Reductions (up to 10 amendments)
15) Reduce State Homeland Security Grant Program to FY08 request (reduce by $300,000,000). This amendment would basically argue that less is needed if the President's proposal to reduce the state minimum share from 0.75 to 0.25 percent is enacted-that too much money is going to states and localities with minimal risk. If the amendment fails, offer the following amendment.
16) Reduce the State Homeland Security Grant Program to FY07 level (reduce by $25,000,000).
17) Reduce funding for Port Security Grants to FY07 level/FY08 request (reduce by $190,000,000).
18) Reduce funding for Rail and Transit Security Grants to FY07 level/FY08 request (reduce by $225,000,000).
19) Eliminate funding for interoperable communication grants since it was not requested (reduce by $50,000,000).
20) Eliminate funding for commercial equipment direct access program since it was not requested (reduce by $20,000,000).
21) Reduce funding for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium to FY08 request (reduce by $50,000,000).
22) Reduce funding for training grants to FY08 request (reduce by $58,000,000).
23) Reduce fire grants to FY08 request (reduce by $270,000,000). If that fails, then offer the next amendment:
24) Reduce fire grants to FY07 level (reduce by $23,000,000).
Policy Amendments (3 amendments)
25) Strike Section 512, Buy America Requirement
26) Strike Section 514, A-76 Prohibition
27) Strike Section 536, Davis-Bacon expansion
Earmark Limitation Amendments (4 amendments)
Note: Although there are no earmarks in the bill, last years' Homeland Security Approps bill included money for 4 bridge alterations. (4 amendments)
28) Galveston Causeway Bridge (Galveston, Texas)
29) Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge (Burlington, Iowa)
30) Canadian Pacific Railway Bridge (LaCrosse, Wisconsin)
31) Chelsea Street Bridge (Chelsea, Massachusetts)
Waste, Fraud, and Abuse (up to 41 amendments)
32) Prohibit FEMA funding for dance classes. (up to 4 times)
33) Prohibit FEMA funding for puppet shows. (up to 4 times)
34) Prohibit FEMA funding for bingo games. (up to 4 times)
35) Prohibit FEMA funding for yoga classes. (up to 4 times)
36) Prohibit FEMA funding for art classes. (up to 4 times)
37) Prohibit FEMA funding for theater workshops. (up to 4 times)
38) Prohibit DHS funding for the office of Multimedia
39) Prohibit DHS funding for purchasing Louis Vuitton handbags
40) Prohibit DHS funding to pay parking tickets
41) Prohibit DHS funding to purchase jewelry
42) Prohibit DHS funding to pay bail bonds
43) Prohibit DHS funding to send more than 50 employees to conferences outside the U.S.
44) Prohibit DHS funding to pay for adult entertainment
One Percent Reduction (1 Amendment)
45) 1 Percent Overall Reduction for Funding in Bill
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Concerning Comprehensive — Comments (27) »
RSC Unleashes Amendment Hell on Democrats 48 Comments (0 topical, 48 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Clearly without centralizing child care in FEMA-directed relief activities, these children will be bereft of everything but their own lousy parents.
Have we learned NOTHING from Senator Clinton?
Run like Reagan!
It is rather sad that Calvert ended up on the appropriations committee. It was wrong and might end up playing to the Democrat's strength in the end.
I hope I am wrong and we can finally get a bit of transparency and reform.
Then again, a larger question looms whether Republicans will go back to their 1994 roots if they EVER regain power in the House again.
... for the ones reducing salaries.
As we are all aware, the federal bureaucracy is littered with incompetent, unqualified employees. The key to addressing this long-term is offering higher salaries in order to entice the best and brightest workers to leave a lucrative private-industry job and work for the government. A good way to offset the increased salaries is to reduce the overall number of positions (and thus the size of the bureaucracy).
At the same time, we must make it easier to fire underperforming government employees.
The key to fixing the federal bureaucracy is the instantiation of a true meritocracy. Paying corrupt sycophants more money only encourages them.
P.S. The government does not need the best and brightest. It needs the honest and industrious.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
There is also no meritocracy in government work. In consequence, productive individuals like me who enter it often do not stay long. In essence the anti-meritorious behavior exhibited within government bureaucracy is anathema to productive workers. Only insanely high pay raises will induce productive employees by and large to stay in government (the money has to be significant enough to keep the vomit and disgust down). Additionally because in a non-meritocracy life is easier through “log rolling” those few productive employees who enter government work are often corrupted by the experience.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
A meritocracy needs to have 2 main components
1) Pay cuts, demotions, and terminations for poorly performing employees. However, much of the government bureaucracy is unionized, and they and their Dem allies will fight this tooth and nail.
2) Pay raises, promotions, and aggressive hiring recruitment for well performing employees/talented candidates.
There are significant differences between establishing a meritocracy and throwing more money at the existing system (the latter is how I interpreted your call for higher pay). The establishment of a meritocracy could actually increase the pay for meritorious employees while at the same time lower the government’s aggregate salary expense (meritocracies are intrinsically more productive than non-meritocracies).
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
The problem is not now, has never been and will never be that we pay government employees too little. The problem is that we hire too many of them and do not hold them accountable.
Wanna improve the performance of ANY agency? Step one, replace the top person. Step two, fire one third of all "managers". Step three, fire 15% of the worker bees. Give the remaining hulk 18 months to meet specific and measurable goals. If they fail on any point at the end of 18 months, shut down the agency with no severance to the failed employees.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
First off, we largely agree.
I agree that
1) There are too many employees. That's why I said we should offset the cost of any pay raises by slashing the total number of positions.
2) We do not hold them accountable. That's why I said it should be easier to fire underperforming employees.
My view is simply this: Want to attract better candidates to government jobs? Increase the salaries as an incentive.
This is simple economics. Thomas Sowell wrote a column about this a few years ago. Check it out. He said that the reason we have so many lousy lawmakers in Congress is that the our nation's best problem solvers choose not to run since the salary is so comparatively low and doing so would result in a massive paycut for them. His platform would be to abolish all but two Cabinet agencies. Some of that savings would go towards increasing Congressional salaries to several million dollars. This incentive would attract much better candidates for office (who would be limited to a single term).
Money quote:
As things stand today, a successful doctor, lawyer, executive, engineer or economist would lose money by becoming a member of Congress. This means that Congress is largely filled with people who either already have great wealth or people who don't have what it takes to earn a high income in the private sector -- or people hungry for power, who are the worst of all.
These are not the kinds of people who should dominate the making of laws in Congress or enforcing them in the courts. Short-sighted critics might object that the kinds of people we have in politics and the courts don't deserve to get a million dollars a year. But that is the very reason for trying to get better people.
My view is that this same principle should be applied to the federal bureaucracy. A successful worker in the private sector would lose money by doing similar work in the public sector. Increased pay would attract better people to the jobs -- hardly a radical or ignorant idea.
I don't think Thomas Sowell lives in a cave, and I don't think I do either.
First of all, productive managers in the private sector wouldn't be caught dead in the "public" sector because the work is generally (outside of the military) either unimportant or counter productive. The public sector is about politics, not productivity or accomplishment.
Second, we should not be doing anything that imputes that said work is important. It's not. If 40% of government employees failed to show up for work, we'd be the better for it.
With respect to elected officials, their pay should be cut by at least 50% and benefits should be eliminated. Their staffs, above some GS level, should have no benefits either. Including - especially - retirement plans. The objective should be to return to the Founders concept of citizen servants, not professional legislators.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
First of all, productive managers in the private sector wouldn't be caught dead in the "public" sector because the work is generally (outside of the military) either unimportant or counter productive.
Sure they would. If the government job offered a better opportunity in the form of higher pay/better benefits, then successful private sector workers of all stripes would surely consider it. Everyone's economic interest boils down to surviving by acquiring more money.
Higher pay attracts higher interest.
Higher interest means better and more competition.
More competition yields a better end-result in the form of a more-qualified employee.
Pretty basic stuff there...
Second, we should not be doing anything that imputes that said work is important. It's not.
I believe in limited government as much as the next guy, but let's not get carried away here. We want to decrease the quantity of government but also increase the quality.
Tired of the CIA and State Dept. filled by political hacks? Again, make it easier to fire bad employees and raise the pay to attract better ones.
How about incompetent consular officers reviewing visa applications and granting them to terrorists that don't even fill out half the forms?
How about lousy security officers that let someone with an obviously fake Mexican matricula consular ID card into government buildings?
To put an end to this pathetic performance, we need to fill these important positions with competent people. The way to do that is increase the pay, which will increase the interest.
With regards to elected officials and their staff, I agree with you 100% on term limitations and no retirement benefits. This would return those positions to a temporary service to one's community, not a lifetime career.
I disagree, however, on cutting salaries. Again, read Sowell's column. Lower salaries mean lower interest, so the position gets filled by someone of lower skills.
The same thing applies to judges. There are lot of brilliant lawyers out there making millions of dollars. They would absolutely refuse a judicial appointment because that would mean a drastic pay cut.
Tired of so many judges issuing ridiculous rulings? Well, let's attract more interest in the judiciary with a higher pay. This would entice more people to consider those jobs. Chief Justice Roberts has suggested the same thing.
Remember Michael Luttig? After the botched nomination of Harriet Miers, Bush had his replacement pick narrowed down to Alito and Luttig. Both were conservative all stars. When Luttig didn't get the nod, he shortly stepped down from the bench and took a lucrative job with Boeing as general counsel. This was a huge loss for conservatives (and huge gain for Boeing). Luttig's clerks would often go on to clerk for Scalia or Thomas. His office was a breeding ground for conservative Supreme Court law clerks, and that is now gone.
Well, want to keep guys like Luttig on the bench? Want to encourage more guys like Luttig to accept nominations to the bench? How about offering judges pay closer to what Boeing offered Luttig? Then Luttig would have no financial incentive to leave his current position on the Fourth Circuit.
Than the pay scale and job security. That isn't even the primary consideration. People spend a lot of time at work. They want to do something like like, or at least something they don't hate. Many people (myself included) wouldn't want to spend it in some poisonous bureaucratic environment where ability counts for nothing and politics means everything. I wouldn't want to do it for even twice the money.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If you had a choice between 2 jobs were nearly equal in all other aspects, you are obviously choosing the one with better pay/benefits. Now if you had a choice between Job A whose location and type of work was slightly worse than Job B. Job A, however, offers slightly higher pay. Now the choice is not so easy. Maybe you still pick Job B. But there are plenty of other people who would pick Job A. Maybe talented people would overall split 45/55 in such a scenario. But that is a heck of a lot better than 5/95 like it'd be in the first scenario.
There are only so many people of skill and talent to go around. If private-sector jobs, on average, are offering better pay than public-sector jobs, then the talented people are going to naturally gravitate towards the private sector. Bottom line is that government needs to offer higher pay if it wants to better compete with the private sector over the talented workers.
Furthermore, part of the reason the bureaucratic environment is so poisonous is that it is filled with incompetent nincompoops. This is extremely frustrating for someone with any real skill.
Again, the way out of this is to slash the irrelevant, counterproductive jobs; establish meritocracy to eliminate ineffective employees; and then sweeten the deal to better attract and retain the effective employees doing the real, important work.
I can't help but wonder if this is connected to the fact that the number of cases granted cert by the Supreme Court has declined and continues to decline drastically. It is already about half of what it once was and expected to shrink. It would seem that poor pay would more likely result in fewer rulings than in poorer rulings.
I doubt also that pay was or is the primary motivator for candidates not wanting to be judges. Rather, it is the confirmation hearing process and the delay leading up to it. The Senate is too divided to give anyone a timely hearing, much less vote on his or her nomination!
As an aside, I think Luttig would have been a disaster! I read one of his opinions and was very glad he never got on the Supreme Court.
What motivates people in government and politics to behave honestly, efficiently, and ethically will differ for each individual. For some, pay incentives may work. For others, pay incentives could make things worse. Still for others, it may make no difference.
There is really no incentive for government to do anything efficiently. It's a bottomless pit of money. If you don't spend your budget it will be cut the next year, rather than if you achieve your goals under your budget you should get rewarded in some fashion.
You get what you pay for and more importantly how you pay for it.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
What is "Adult Entertainment", and why are we paying for it?
A puppet show and were they adult entertainment ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
..and they are not smiling on the other side of the isle!
Sweet!
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
"16) Reduce the State Homeland Security Grant Program to FY07 level (reduce by $25,000,000).
17) Reduce funding for Port Security Grants to FY07 level/FY08 request (reduce by $190,000,000).
18) Reduce funding for Rail and Transit Security Grants to FY07 level/FY08 request (reduce by $225,000,000)."
I understand the cuts in the "Waste, Fraud, and Abuse" section but why would you cut funding for security grants? The savings from them wouldn't even pay for one week of the war in Iraq but they could do plenty to help secure our country.
...the reason the earmarks are not in the bill is because the staff on Appropriations Committee are studying them to ensure they are appropriate.
Then they are saying the Republicans are just trouble makers who are cutting spending without justification because they don't even know what they are cutting.
In other words, they are saying, "Trust us! We will ensure only good earmarks are put in the bill".
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
This way they can "Air-Drop" all the "good earmarks" in at a later date and in secrete or in comity
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
...Its not their fault because of what the Republicans did last year they didn't have time to put them in the bill.
Simply amazing!
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
The reason the earmarks are not in the bill is because the Republicans in previous years did such a bad job of oversight that they had to spend so much time on oversight that they had to concentrate on the substance of the bill.
[comment] He is mad too!
Then he pointed out the omnibus Labor and Health bills the Republicans did in 1998, 2000 and 2001 that did the same thing, to justify this bill
Then he said they were doing this more openly than the Republicans were doing it.
[comment]The Republicans are driving them crazy with the amendments, and they are furious.
The vote is on for the current motion now.
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
Show me a finger pointing angry guy like Obey and I'll show you a defensive liar.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
since the original post I have sat here and watched cspan is there rehab for political junkies?
...being a sports junkie. My wife shook her head and went to bed.
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
Facing almost 100 amendments, the House voted on a party line vote to "Rise" and come back tomorrow. Two Democrats voted "yea" with the Republicans and two Republicans voted "nae" with the Democrats.
It sports parlance, the game was called due to rain (tears - they took their ball and went home). It is rescheduled for tomorrow.
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
spoke for his time and then called another motion to rise this is the funniest stuff and man I love it, sick I tell ya!!
This is "House" gorilla warfare at it's ugliest. The HSC is making me proud!
Barney Frank has the Speakers Chair is going crazy.
There is another motion to rise now.
The yelling is sounding like the British House of Comons and it is getting very testy!
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
to keep 219 votes on hand all night!!!!
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
Counters Obey's claims that they didn't have time to review earmarks by saying they had 3 months to review but were to busy milking troop funding - attaching date certain for surrender and so forth stretching that losing effort out for 3 months
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
a House version of a proactive filibuster since they can't keep debate going forever like the Senate can.
Made a great suggestion to the chairman of the appropriations committee
he said theirs something like 30,000 earmark requests being held up for review that could be released to the members or outside groups and not keep them secrete until the bill is passed and drop them in when they cannot be challenged he said divided amongst the members would make it about 76 or so to each member to review
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
...they are saying the reason for 40 million dollars not specifically allocated to anything COULD be used for a long range ship tracking system.
Yea.... Riggghhhtttt Gotcha!
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
Barney frank is about to have a blood vessel in his neck pop!
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
the dem's did this stuff all the time to the R's when they were in the majority. I sure hope the R's in the house have learned a very necessary lesson and we can get the public to give them another chance in 08. The d's are hateful sneaky cheating taxing snakes and of course a lot of the R's became that way so maybe a lesson learned.
Please, please someone tell me this is just a bad dream!
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
When the committee rises, what does it look like? A big wave going from one side of the chamber to the other? Will they throw their hands up in the air?
Hey, isn't live republican government great?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
MoveOn.org is sure to fight anything reducing puppet show funding. Isn't that what pays Harry and Nancy's salary?
the vote was 312-82
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll465.xml
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
How will people survive natural disasters without puppet shows and yoga? Aren't those the stock in trade of disaster management?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill