http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_budget_according_to_mccain_part_i.html

Quote :

"Summary McCain is apparently claiming that he can save $100 billion simply by eliminating earmarks, past and present. Let's start with a simple overview of earmarks, which are line items inserted by lawmakers into legislation funding the federal government. Estimates of earmarked spending vary. For fiscal 2008, the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense said there was $18.3 billion earmarked in spending bills. Citizens Against Government Waste came in at $17.2 billion. The Office of Management and Budget tallied earmarks at a mere $16.9 billion. In 2006, the Congressional Research Service, which used a different definition of "earmark" for each of the 11 spending bills it studied in that year, came up with over $67 billion. But contrary to popular belief -- this is the first of several bits of information readers may be surprised by -- cutting earmarks wouldn't necessarily cut government spending, according to independent budget experts from across the political spectrum. Jeff Patch, a budget fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute (and also a former McCain volunteer) told FactCheck.org that "earmarks just direct funds from executive agencies to specific projects or companies." That is, while there are still a few pet projects slipped into legislation in the dark of night that do increase the federal budget, earmarks often simply tell agencies how to spend money that they are already getting. So while earmarks may drive up the cost of government slightly (by, for example, awarding no-bid contracts in a legislator's home district), cutting earmarks alone is "not sufficient for cutting wasteful spending," Patch said. The Brookings Institution's Paul Cullinan, research director of the Budgeting for National Priorities Project, agrees, saying that earmarks "might be an allocation issue" rather than a spending issue. And Scott Lilly, a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress, told us that "there’s no evidence that if you took earmarks out, federal spending would go down." And (surprise #2) McCain now says that many earmarks aren't really wasteful spending at all. For example, in 2006 the Congressional Research Service counted 75 percent (or $15.7 billion) of the 2006 foreign operations budget as earmarks. That figure includes $4.3 billion in aid to Israel and Egypt. Another $16.1 billion was earmarked for military construction and veterans affairs, and $9.4 billion more was earmarked for defense spending. That's $41 billion – or more than two-fifths of the amount of earmark spending McCain cites. But McCain has no plans to cut those particular earmarks. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief economic adviser, told FactCheck.org that "if you don't have earmarks, a lot of those things would be funded under regular order, if they have merit." So if all this savings isn't coming from earmark cuts, then where will it come from? Holtz-Eakin tells us (surprise #3) that it will come from cuts in the annual budget: Holtz-Eakin: So what he’s talked about is going forward, just not signing bills that have earmarks in them, period. That’s his pledge. And then, also going forward, cut discretionary spending, and that’s simply a pledge to reduce the amount of spending. And it’s not that it’s going to be tied to going back to specific projects that began as earmarks. It’s that we’re going to scrub defense, non-defense spending alike, reform procurement, evaluate programs, take the time-out, the one-year pause, and look at everything and then cut the budget going forward. Which, ultimately, hopefully, we’ll get $100 billion out of the annual baseline. When we asked specifically whether the $100 billion in spending cuts had anything to do with eliminating earmarks, Holtz-Eakin told us: "It can't. I mean, by definition, every dollar is up for grabs every year.""

5/29/2008 12:29:53 PM

Quote :

"So if all this savings isn't coming from earmark cuts, then where will it come from? Holtz-Eakin tells us (surprise #3) that it will come from cuts in the annual budget: Holtz-Eakin: So what he’s talked about is going forward, just not signing bills that have earmarks in them, period. That’s his pledge. And then, also going forward, cut discretionary spending, and that’s simply a pledge to reduce the amount of spending. And it’s not that it’s going to be tied to going back to specific projects that began as earmarks. It’s that we’re going to scrub defense, non-defense spending alike, reform procurement, evaluate programs, take the time-out, the one-year pause, and look at everything and then cut the budget going forward. Which, ultimately, hopefully, we’ll get $100 billion out of the annual baseline."

YAY I WILL VOTE FOR THIS

Quote :

"When we asked specifically whether the $100 billion in spending cuts had anything to do with eliminating earmarks, Holtz-Eakin told us: "It can't. I mean, by definition, every dollar is up for grabs every year."""

Yes, but after he cuts earmarks, then the amount of spending towards federal projects would be reduced therefore allowing a budget cut going into the next fiscal year.

Again, YAY I WILL VOTE FOR THIS


This is the only point about McCain that I am enthusiastic about. Since our deficit/debt will doom us long before terrorists will, I support McCain's bid.

Look at the other side. They're pledging multi-billion and trillion dollar spending INCREASES. If we don't do something, we'll all drown in entitlements.

5/29/2008 12:36:00 PM

Welcome to last month. ThingProgress has something every other day on this.

This is what McCain gets for saying he would try to balance the budget. Clinton faced the same problem in 1992. Because one's opponents loves to ask for specifics during the election, because they know you won't deliever (suprise suprise, no one likes cuts in spending or hikes in taxes).

He should have followed Obama's lead and said he wouldn't balance the budget anytime soon. In doing so he's been able to propose billions of dollars in new spending without anyone batting an eye.

5/29/2008 12:38:16 PM

Quote :

"Welcome to last month."

Even for a TWWer you seem too willing to be a smartass.

No current threads on McCain related to his campaign promises were listed on the 1st page ... and I wanted to bring the subject up. My apologies if you under the impression that I was naively presenting this as "breaking news." I'll be sure to include disclaimer next time I start a thread reminding people that I want to discuss the topic as opposed to debating who said it first..

5/29/2008 12:55:33 PM

Quote :

"And (surprise #2) McCain now says that many earmarks aren't really wasteful spending at all."

me and duke discussed this once....this is a reason i'm for earmarks...i forget why he didnt like useful earmarks but i think it was cause he said its unconstitutional or that the government shouldnt be in charge of useful earmarks

5/29/2008 1:03:08 PM

It's only acceptable to create threads trashing Obama now, haven't you realized this?

5/29/2008 1:03:56 PM

Quote :

"Since our deficit/debt will doom us long before terrorists will, I support McCain's bid."

thanks for the war and the deficit, GDUBB


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

US National Debt Under Clinton shrunk by ~8%

US National Debt Under Bush - projected net growth of +10%

Quote :

"Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever. George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton’s policy in order to revive Reagan’s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his “base” as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1022-26.htm

5/29/2008 1:12:06 PM

yeah but some would argue bush got rid of the money clinton saved up cause the dems were trying to make us socialist

5/29/2008 1:14:59 PM

Clinton didn't save up any money. He slashed defense and had a line item veto. That helps.


I agree with ^^. The debt is NOT COOL and the Iraq War has added a good 30% to that. The other 70% was from GENERATIONS of fiscal abuse.

Obama/Hillary offer nothing different and will even further the strain.

5/29/2008 1:20:31 PM

Oeuvre, can you tell me what a line item veto is? Without looking it up?

5/29/2008 1:35:00 PM

Yes. When given a bill, the President has the right to veto items off the bill, line by line, as opposed to vetoing the bill as a whole or passing the bill as a whole.


I fully understand what that is and it was 90% of the reason that Clinton was able to have a balanced budget. And I applaud him for it.

5/29/2008 1:42:21 PM

Oh, I thought it sounded like you were against his use of a line item veto/using a talking point. Carry on.

5/29/2008 1:47:06 PM

No no, I wish EVERY president had this option. It's a great tool to weed out unnecessary spending.

5/29/2008 1:48:15 PM

i dont get why its such a big issue...i filled out one of those questionnaires back when there were still like 10 repub and 10 dem nominees(the questionnaire told you which candidates shared the most of your views), and one of the questions was like "do you support a line item veto"...i didnt know if i should support it or not, but the questionnaire made it sound like it was a big deal

5/29/2008 1:50:29 PM

Line item veto's will allow a president to allow only what they want in a bill to be passed.

Quote :

"the line-item veto is the power of an executive to nullify or "cancel" specific provisions of a bill, usually budget appropriations, without vetoing the entire legislative package. The line-item vetoes are usually subject to the possibility of legislative override as are traditional vetoes."

It's a generally bad thing, IMO.

5/29/2008 1:55:17 PM

it's a HUGE deal.

Say there's a natural disaster or troops need funding.

Congress appropriates money and controls that. The President sends them a request for funds and the reps can basically put in bridges to nowhere, a mil for peanut farmers, a mil for fecal matter testing, anything.

The president receives the bill and he either has to sign it or veto it. If he needs the money for the disaster or war, then he has to fund bridges to nowhere.


Clinton had the option of striking individual lines out of the spending bills so he could weed out the bridges and fecal matter testing.

5/29/2008 1:55:54 PM

well, the line item veto has been ruled unconstitutional, so there is no point in going back to that argument.

5/29/2008 1:56:39 PM

^ has it? Even with the veto override? I'd like to see the ruling as I deeply disagree. If there is a check on the presidents power with an override, I dont' see how it's unconstitutional.

5/29/2008 1:57:23 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

5/29/2008 1:59:29 PM

Yeah, I'm generally a fan of it.

5/29/2008 1:59:53 PM

^^ohhhh i thought this was something that had the chance of coming back...didnt know it was unconstitutional

[Edited on May 29, 2008 at 2:01 PM. Reason : thanks for the link]

5/29/2008 2:00:57 PM

^^^ Wow pretty nonpartisan in the majority/minority opinions.


I'm still a fan of it.


It can come back. Pass the Law again and it will be tried before the SCOTUS again, this time, with perhaps a different outcome.

It's not written into the constitutions as something you can't do. The opinion of the court was that it was unconstitutional.

Or COngress could amend the constitution and add that in. Then the court would be bound by it.

[Edited on May 29, 2008 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

5/29/2008 2:01:43 PM

There's another, weaker, version of the act out there apparently, but the last updates on it was in 2006 so I don't know how it fared.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4890

[Edited on May 29, 2008 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/29/2008 2:03:59 PM

I was just reading on that.

I support this, Democrat or Republican president. I think it checks the power on Congress to stuff bullshit into bills.

5/29/2008 2:06:09 PM

the line item veto only seems like a good idea if the president and majority of congress are opposite parties....for example, if bush had this in 2002 when the repubs controlled the house and senate it would have sucked if he kept taking off things and the dems didnt have enough votes to stop him

5/29/2008 2:06:53 PM

If we could confine that to appropriations bill which is where Clinton used it, I would say go for it. But DNL brings up a decent point.


I just see it as wrong and immoral for a defense spending bill to include a bridge to nowhere in alaska.

5/29/2008 2:08:19 PM

The president already has that authority, it's his veto pen.

5/29/2008 2:12:35 PM

still a problem.

The president can either fund the troops or veto. If he has to veto because of bullshit projects, then we have a huge problem.

Can't exactly have a congressional bickering contest with people's lives on the line.

5/29/2008 2:19:07 PM

the way appropriations bills work is that the money is a recurring appropriation unless otherwise noted. The President vetoing the bill would do nothing to stop the funding of the troops. They would be funded at the current levels until the appropriation modification act became law.

5/29/2008 2:25:01 PM

Quote :

"If he has to veto because of bullshit projects, then we have a huge problem."

i think the problem in that instance is him vetoing it....if he wants to fund that bullshit war he can fund those bullshit projects

5/29/2008 2:27:08 PM

imagine a war that's not bullshit. Like WWII

5/29/2008 2:34:53 PM

Okay, now imagine something that is completely different from the situation we are talking about, that's what you just presented.


A WWII-like war would never run into funding problems, although something akin to the Marshall plan or an occupation post-war might depending on circumstances.

5/29/2008 2:47:47 PM

You don't think WWII was a budgetary hurdle?


I'm saying the president, regardless of what war or what circumstance, should have the right to throw out bullshit funding assignments.


The congress could bring the troops home TOMORROW therefore checking the president's bullshit war. Yet they don't.

5/29/2008 2:59:30 PM

Yes, the could. Do you think starving the military budget would be a good way to bring the troops home?

5/29/2008 3:00:56 PM

That's what they could do. They could not approve any of the president's funding requests. Without money, they come home.

That's their option. Yet they don't.

5/29/2008 3:03:04 PM

You're really dense if you can't figure out why they don't do that.

5/29/2008 3:05:20 PM

I'm not saying it's a great choice, but it is a check on the president's power. I'm asking for the same in return.

5/29/2008 3:07:05 PM

Allowing line item veto's essentially turns the president into a legislator, which he is not supposed to be. A whole-bill veto is the presidents check. If the bill is not up to par do not pass it.

5/29/2008 3:09:28 PM

Free reign appropriations bills and bridges to nowhere in military spending bills turn senators and representatives into free spenders which they are not supposed to be.

5/29/2008 3:11:08 PM

Veto the entire bill and publicize each project that is not relevant on primetime TV. Do this enough and they will learn.

5/29/2008 3:17:47 PM