Weekly Policy Round-Up 2

3 Reasons Conservatives Should Cut Defense Spending Now!

Nick Gillespie & Meredith Bragg, Reason: Hit & Run, 01/10/2012

The Congressional Budget Office projects that if we keep spending the way we have been, federal debt held by the public will grow from around 60 percent of GDP to a whopping 82 percent of GDP over the next decade, with no end in sight. That’s the sort of borrowing that can ruin a country's economy.

Obama Proposes New Department of Corporate Welfare

Tad DeHaven, Cato@Liberty, 01/13/2012

As I discuss in a Cato essay on the SBA, rather than helping small businesses compete against big businesses, the SBA’s loan guarantees mainly help a tiny share of small businesses compete against other small businesses. In reality, the biggest beneficiary of the SBA is the banks, which reap the profits from the loans guaranteed by the agency.

Merging Wasteful Agencies Won't Shrink Government (audio)

Cato Daily Podcast, 01/13/2012

The real purpose of these agencies is politics. Every member of Congress wants to say that they support small business, because they support funding to the SBA.

The inefficiency of merging agencies was demonstrated by the failure of the Department of Homeland Security, which only added a new level of bureaucracy. Contrary to what many fake conservative politicians will tell you, consolidating government does not shrink government. In almost every case that we have observed, it has lead to an increase in government.

Rethinking Anti-spending Rhetoric

On yesterday's The Daily Show, Jon Stewart didn't interview Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) as expected. He debated him. He challenged him and made the most convincing case in favor of government spending that I have ever heard. While I continue to disagree with Jon Stewart in principle on the issue of government spending, I think he raises some good points in criticizing the "apocalyptic" and polarizing language used by "Tea Party" activists and questioning the motives behind government spending cuts. Are we making cuts just for the sake of making cuts, or are we considering the value of each program and finding smartest way to create alternatives?

This debate is well worth considering for those of us who side with Sen. DeMint on seeking significant spending cuts at the federal level. Jon Stewart won this debate. Let's be honest, he completely owned Sen. DeMint. The "Tea Party Movement" and others seeking federal spending cuts must watch this debate and rethink our rhetoric:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-january-11-2012-jim-demint

Budget? We Don't Need No Stinking Budget!

For the second time since the beginning of the 112th Congress, a temporary “stop-gap” budget has been passed, leaving a full budget for another day. Senator Rand Paul has introduced a bill that would prevent a shutdown of the federal government. According to Sen. Paul “My proposal seeks to alleviate the worries of people who rely on important services, and fill the gap created by non-passage of spending bills, while forcing Congress to deal with the unsustainable spending. In my bill, we keep obligations made to our military personnel, seniors, children, and federal workers maintain an adequate level of pay, but Members of Congress and the President do not get paid unless they actually work out a resolution.”

In my opinion the proposal by Senator Paul fails to go far enough. One of the positive features of the bill is the provision that neither the President nor members of Congress are to be paid for the period of time in which there is no budget. However, the bill still allows the federal government to continue collecting and spending tax money.

Writing about the possibility of a government “shutdown” Tom Knapp writes, “every time this thing comes up, the Democrats run the table. They raise the roof over 'draconian' cuts in government spending. They say the Republicans want to take away the geezers' Social Security checks. They say it's personal petulance (remember the 'this is all about Newt Gingrich feeling left out on Air Force One' meme in 1995?).
The Democrats get away with it because Republicans bend over backward trying to 'look reasonable' and 'craft compromises' and end up playing the losing end of the blame game -- so much so this time around that their starting proposal for budget cuts came to less than 1/25th of the projected deficit. Not 1/25th of the spending, 1/25th of the over-spending... That's not draconian, it's the punch line to a bad joke.”

One commenter (screenname "AngelaTC") on Knapp's blog writes, “their idea of a government shut down is different than mine. For example, they'll shut the National Parks down instead of just walking away from them. And if it threatens to go on for much more than a week, they'll be sure to start making sure to slash benefits to the mundanes instead of sending Homeland Security on an extended vacation.”

If the Congress were sincere about wanting to prevent a shutdown of the federal government – though I doubt they are – they would remain in session without recess until a full budget is passed. Maybe then, they would be able to come to a “compromise” on what agencies of the federal government need to be abolished and/or privatized.

Slow Down Government, Part II: Congressional Reform

Over the last decade, we have seen a disturbing trend of unaccountability in Congress. The bills have gotten longer, costlier, and more blatantly unconstitutional, and they seem to pass them faster than we can read them. This post is Part II of a two-part series on legislative reform. Part I dealt with reform of state assemblies. Let's look now at how we can slow down the U.S. Congress.

The leading authority on downsizing Congress is, fittingly, the organization Downsize DC. Downsize DC has authored four bills which could be passed to reform the U.S. Congress. These would require legislators to pay more attention to what they pass, effectively slowing down the process and allowing the public to be more informed about what is in the bills.

The first of these is the "Read the Bills Act" (RTBA). RTBA requires that each bill be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate. It requires each legislator to sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that they have read a bill before they vote on it. It requires that every bill be published online for at least a week before a vote, with the date of that vote publicized in advance. RTBA does not allow Congress to waive these requirements.

Downsize DC also proposes the "One Subject at a Time Act" (OSTA). OSTA requires that each bill cover only one subject of policy change and that each bill's name specifies what the bill actually does. OSTA would avoid rider bills that sneak controversial measures into unrelated bills. For example, in 2005, the REAL ID Act, establishing a national identity card, was hidden within the "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief." REAL ID is not a military defense or tsunami relief appropriation. It is also a controversial proposal that would have been heavily debated if proposed as its own bill. REAL ID passed through the appropriations bill, and was undiscovered by the public until after the bill had passed. OSTA also requires that a bill's name describes what it actually does. This might replace a marketing slogan like "No Child Left Behind" with an honest title like the "Act to Require Standardized Testing to Receive Federal Education Funding." The bill could only do what it says it does, and it would be difficult to spin it to be interpreted as otherwise.

Next on the Downsize DC agenda is the "Write the Laws Act" (WTLA). WTLA requires Congress to write specific legislation, rather than delegate the responsibilities of regulation and punishment responsibilities to bureaucrats. Congress would have to specify each regulation, and it would have to be enforced by the courts. This means the EPA can't suddenly decide that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that causes global warming and start charging companies fees for CO2 output. Congress would have to pass a law, and I imagine the citizens would not make it easy for them.

Finally, Downsize DC's "Enumerated Powers Act" (EPA) would require Congress to cite the constitutional authority it has to pass each law. The "enumerated" legislative powers of Congress are in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. As the 10th Amendment specifies, any powers not specified in Article I, Section 8 "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If the enumerated Powers Act were passed, Rep. Phil Hare might have to "care" about whether a bill like Obamacare is constitutional.

Of these four bills, the one with perhaps the best chance of passing is the Enumerated Powers Act. It has been introduced to the current Congress by Rep. John Shadegg as H.R. 450.

If Congress believes that they have the authority to regulate us out of doing anything without their permission, it is only fair that we do the same to them. It would be nearly impossible to pass something like Obamacare, another stimulus package, or whatever other monstrosities our congressmen are concocting if Downsize DC's legislation were passed. Congress should be forced to read the bills, write them responsibly, specify the laws within the bills without delegating powers, and justify the constitutionality of every law they try to pass. If we want to reduce the size and scope of government, we should start by putting Congress on a leash.