The American Constitution

[Alan Klein]

My niece Lisa Raines was on that plane.

The plane was crashed into the Pentagon, not the World Trade Center. 

[RSL]

Sorry to hear it, Alan.

[Alan Klein]

Sorry to hear it, Alan.

Thanks.   She was a beautiful, kind, and loving person who helped do a lot of good for medical care in the USA when she worked with Congress.   It really hit her mom, my sister Marilyn pretty hard.  And her brother my nephew Doug.

There's a lot of fighting going on about giving help to first-responders who got cancer when they helped clean up the wreckage at the WTC.  Congress should just get on with it and continue helping these people.  Vets too.   After it's all over, we so often forget about those who helped us. 

[James Clark]

There's a lot of fighting going on about giving help to first-responders who got cancer when they helped clean up the wreckage at the WTC.  Congress should just get on with it and continue helping these people.  Vets too.   After it's all over, we so often forget about those who helped us.

Agreed 100%.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Paul Krugman has an interesting column in today's NY Times.  He notes that the state of Kentucky received $40 billion in transfer payments from the US government over what their citizens paid in taxes.  He notes that if Kentucky were a foreign country this would be looked at as foreign aid on a colossal scale (it represents 1/5 of the state's GDP).  He writes, "This aid, in turn, supports a lot of jobs. It’s fair to say that far more Kentuckians work in hospitals kept afloat by Medicare and Medicaid, in retail establishments kept going by Social Security and food stamps, than in all traditional occupations like mining and even agriculture combined."

I remember back when Hurricane Katrina destroyed the flood control system in New Orleans, the US committed over $12 billion to fix everything and the state of Louisiana virtually nothing.  It's often overlooked that the 'left wing' states in the US (barring perhaps Texas and maybe Florida) subsidize many of the states that voted for President Trump.  I find this all very curious.

[Alan Klein]

Paul Krugman has an interesting column in today's NY Times.  He notes that the state of Kentucky received $40 billion in transfer payments from the US government over what their citizens paid in taxes.  He notes that if Kentucky were a foreign country this would be looked at as foreign aid on a colossal scale (it represents 1/5 of the state's GDP).  He writes, "This aid, in turn, supports a lot of jobs. It’s fair to say that far more Kentuckians work in hospitals kept afloat by Medicare and Medicaid, in retail establishments kept going by Social Security and food stamps, than in all traditional occupations like mining and even agriculture combined."

I remember back when Hurricane Katrina destroyed the flood control system in New Orleans, the US committed over $12 billion to fix everything and the state of Louisiana virtually nothing.  It's often overlooked that the 'left wing' states in the US (barring perhaps Texas and maybe Florida) subsidize many of the states that voted for President Trump.  I find this all very curious.

It helps when the majority leader for the Senate is the senator from Kentucky.

[Rob C]

The First of the First World:

http://dunas.com/america-color/

;-)

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It helps when the majority leader for the Senate is the senator from Kentucky.

And this is good, how?

Doesn't the Constitution and the laws based on it apply equally to all, or is clientelism built into it?

Doesn't this fall under the Hatch Act of 1939?
The 1939 Act forbids the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes.

Who is going to fix this buying of votes?

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

And this is good, how?

Doesn't the Constitution and the laws based on it apply equally to all, or is clientelism built into it?

Doesn't this fall under the Hatch Act of 1939?
The 1939 Act forbids the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes.

Who is going to fix this buying of votes?

Cheers,
Bart

Congress has the right to appropriate money in what ever way they so decide.  The Hatch Act applies to those in the Executive Branch such as permanent Federal employees who work for various agencies and those appointed by the President.  The President's advisor, Kellyanne Conway was recently upbraided by the special counsel for ethics (a different position from the one Mueller held) for making campaign statements against a number of Democrats and urged that she be sanctioned.  This is being ignored by the President and his staff.

In the past membership on Congressional appropriations committees was highly desired as those committees made the final decision about how funds were to be spent.  It was quite common to 'earmark' money for projects in a member's home district and there was a lot of trading of favors between Congressmen of both parties to get these projects through and approved.  The Congressional budget process is complicated in that the committee that has jurisdiction over a particular aspect of the budget has to authorize an amount to be spent and this request is then forwarded to the respective appropriations subcommittee (off the top of my head and not consulting Wikipedia, I think there are 8 or 10 such subcommittees).  The complexity of this coupled with the budget committees (which really have no power at all but recommend multiyear budget targets) has led to gridlock in Congress and it is extremely rare that the a fiscal year budget ever gets approved.

As a rough outline, the President proposes a budget in late January and forwards it to Congress where it is pretty much ignored regardless of which party is in power.  The authorizing and appropriations committees are supposed to do their work and a budget is 'supposed' to be approved prior to the start of the next fiscal year that begins on October 1.  The failure usually results in a continuing resolution that funds government activities.  The process is further complicated as the US operates under a debt ceiling that cannot be exceeded (this is set in statute and has to be changed in order for the government to spend money in excess of the current ceiling).  I think the present ceiling will be reached in several months and there will be a big political battle as usual with a possible government shutdown.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Congress has the right to appropriate money in what ever way they so decide.  The Hatch Act applies to those in the Executive Branch such as permanent Federal employees who work for various agencies and those appointed by the President.  The President's advisor, Kellyanne Conway was recently upbraided by the special counsel for ethics (a different position from the one Mueller held) for making campaign statements against a number of Democrats and urged that she be sanctioned.  This is being ignored by the President and his staff.

In the past membership on Congressional appropriations committees was highly desired as those committees made the final decision about how funds were to be spent.  It was quite common to 'earmark' money for projects in a member's home district and there was a lot of trading of favors between Congressmen of both parties to get these projects through and approved.  The Congressional budget process is complicated in that the committee that has jurisdiction over a particular aspect of the budget has to authorize an amount to be spent and this request is then forwarded to the respective appropriations subcommittee (off the top of my head and not consulting Wikipedia, I think there are 8 or 10 such subcommittees).  The complexity of this coupled with the budget committees (which really have no power at all but recommend multiyear budget targets) has led to gridlock in Congress and it is extremely rare that the a fiscal year budget ever gets approved.

As a rough outline, the President proposes a budget in late January and forwards it to Congress where it is pretty much ignored regardless of which party is in power.  The authorizing and appropriations committees are supposed to do their work and a budget is 'supposed' to be approved prior to the start of the next fiscal year that begins on October 1.  The failure usually results in a continuing resolution that funds government activities.  The process is further complicated as the US operates under a debt ceiling that cannot be exceeded (this is set in statute and has to be changed in order for the government to spend money in excess of the current ceiling).  I think the present ceiling will be reached in several months and there will be a big political battle as usual with a possible government shutdown.

Thanks, Alan, for the concise summary of the situation. It's how I also roughly understand it to be.

But it also looks like a very inefficient process, and what's worse, it's riddled with perverse incentives (and especially vulnerable in what's basically a two party system). Even worse, it apparently doesn't really work, given the clientelism and frequent Government shutdowns that result from it.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Thanks, Alan, for the concise summary of the situation. It's how I also roughly understand it to be.

But it also looks like a very inefficient process, and what's worse, it's riddled with perverse incentives (and especially vulnerable in what's basically a two party system). Even worse, it apparently doesn't really work, given the clientelism and frequent Government shutdowns that result from it.

Cheers,
Bart

It's a terrible system that has caused America to go into debt of over $20 trillion dollars.  We're going broke.  But Europe seems to be on the same path even with their parliamentary systems.  It's what happens when you have greedy voters who want the government to provide them with everything run by government bureaucrats willing to buy their votes.

The Netherlands isn't as bad as some others.  But I'm not sure you want to brag about your debt either.  Of course, you could argue that your debt is spent more wisely.  But is it?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269684/national-debt-in-eu-countries-in-relation-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp/

[RSL]

But it also looks like a very inefficient process. . .

It certainly has its shortcomings. But if you want to understand how a really efficient process works, check the Third Reich. The last thing you want in a political process is "efficiency."

[faberryman]

It certainly has its shortcomings.

One of the primary reasons Kentucky gets more in federal funds than it pays in federal taxes is that it is among the poorest states in the country. Lower incomes means less federal taxes, and more federal welfare benefits. So its not like it is a badge of honor.

[Alan Goldhammer]

One of the primary reasons Kentucky gets more in federal funds than it pays in federal taxes is that it is among the poorest states in the country. Lower incomes means less federal taxes, and more federal welfare benefits. So its not like it is a badge of honor.

Kentucky also accepted the Medicaid funding from Obamacare which most other southern states did not. It's one of the reasons why the poor in Appalanchia get decent medical service whereas those in Tennessee do not.

This is also a difficult statistic to parse since it includes not only transfer payments such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid but also the salaries of Federal employees (including military) who live in that state.  Virginia ranks high on the list of states getting Federal funds because of the large military and government work force.

[Alan Klein]

One of the primary reasons Kentucky gets more in federal funds than it pays in federal taxes is that it is among the poorest states in the country. Lower incomes means less federal taxes, and more federal welfare benefits. So its not like it is a badge of honor.

Liberals seem to always want to have people reach into their pockets to help those in need.  So I would think that these same people would be in favor of fellow Americans in richer states helping out other Americans in poorer states.  Or do we only want to give our money to illegal immigrants who sneak into our country?

[Robert Roaldi]

Liberals seem to always want to have people reach into their pockets to help those in need.  So I would think that these same people would be in favor of fellow Americans in richer states helping out other Americans in poorer states.  Or do we only want to give our money to illegal immigrants who sneak into our country?

What would your god want you to do?

[Rob C]

What would your god want you to do?

That's easy: build another wall.

:-)

Having said which, he may well be right, but not in his technique. All of Europe is effectively building a wall too, but in better ways. As the moles in the Middle East have shown, over and over again, physical walls can always be tunnelled. For as far as it takes. Better than nothing, but expensively limited in efficiency, walls.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... It's often overlooked that the 'left wing' states in the US (barring perhaps Texas and maybe Florida) subsidize many of the states that voted for President Trump.  I find this all very curious.

What I find curios is that you, and Krugman et al, find it all of a sudden curious that taxing the rich is used to help the poor. Isn't that the whole mantra of the left? As faberryman rightly noted: "Lower incomes means less federal taxes, and more federal welfare benefits." So, it is not that the federal government is subsidizing Kentucky or other poorer states, it sends benefits to individual citizens that happen to live in a particular state at the moment. My social security benefit (pension) is not sent to Florida state first, so that FL can pay me. It is sent to my bank account, and I just happen to live in FL at the moment.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Liberals seem to always want to have people reach into their pockets to help those in need.  So I would think that these same people would be in favor of fellow Americans in richer states helping out other Americans in poorer states.  Or do we only want to give our money to illegal immigrants who sneak into our country?

We don't get a choice.  It is the states that got to decide if they wanted to do Medicaid expansion.  With the exception of Kentucky, I think most of the southern states elected not to do so and that's why there are large numbers of uninsured in those states these days.  Why didn't Louisiana contribute any money to fixing the New Orleans flood control system after Katrina instead of relying on the Federal government for over $12B.  States are all for their own way of doing something until something bad happens and then they come to the US government for help.  I guess that's why they are able to keep state taxes so low.

BTW, most of the illegal immigrants are those who overstayed legitimate visas, not those who sneak into the country.

[RSL]

It's often overlooked that the 'left wing' states in the US (barring perhaps Texas and maybe Florida) subsidize many of the states that voted for President Trump.  I find this all very curious.

Stramge, Alan, that those "left wing" states Texas and Florida voted for Trump in the last election. You're right. That's curious. ROTFL.