http://news.yahoo.com/special-repor...s-conceal-epic-waste-144950858--business.html When we look at ways to reduce our deficit, I have long been chastised for wanting to keep taxes low and eliminate the fraud and waste in the budget. This is what I am talking about.
You know who keeps voting to increase the size of the Defense Department year after year though, right? The same people you keep voting for, year after year. You may think you want a cheaper Defense Department, but the truth of the matter is you don't mean it. Otherwise you wouldn't vote GOP over and over again.
Lets not draw party lines on this. We don't need to increase the budget if we would just eliminate the waste involved in what has already been appropriated. Congress controls the purse strings and this has been an issue with both democrat and republican controlled congresses. It's s systemic problem with large government departments regardless of the party in power.
Maybe you see something different, but it looks like Eisenhower, Johnson, Reagan, and Bush II were the big net spenders here, whereas Truman, Kennedy, Nixon/Ford, Carter, Clinton, and Obama have low levels of growth or even negative net growth. In the first group, we've got 3 Republicans and one Democrat. In the second group, we've got 5 Democrats and two Republicans. So sure, bipartisan problem. Then let's take a look-see at Congress in all of this. Democrats controlled Congress for all but that big spike in the Korean war, the Reagan build up, and the period 1995-2007 (when the buildup began in earnest immediately after Clinton left office). So sure, you believe what you want. Keep voting Republican. I can guarantee that you're voting against your own stated interest here.
Since you like your pretty pictures, check this link. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=D Yes, more than half went to Republicans, but not by much and certainly not enough to say it's a Republican only problem. And yet again, I am not painting this as a party line issue, rather an issue with accounting for waste in the massive government bureaucracy. It's why people like me don't want increases in taxes and want to reduce the size of government.
Lobbying funds go to whomever is in power. That's not news in political science. What is newsworthy is that someone who wants waste cut out of government votes for the people who enshrine that waste in government.
That's a possible solution if a candidate can be found and a coherent unifying message to unit disparate interests together can be crafted.
I would think this would be something you would champion, not defend, as a political scientist. Or are you just waiting for your team to lose power?
I think his point (at least in this particular topic) is that complaining about waste in the Military and voting Republican is hypocritical. Now Democrats want other programs that would contain waste, but the waste in the Military Industrial Complex is more of a Republican baby.
I think lobbyists should give to the winners, and I don't think inefficiencies in government are all that bad. Some waste is to be expected from governance, and rather than structure our government to avoid the problem, we should wait for abuses and then fix them. My problem is that Republicans are the party least likely to go after the DoD's waste, and their lockstep agreement on the issue means the Democrats can only do so if they hold filibuster-proof majorities.
I did. That's where the "lobbyists give to the people in power" argument comes from. Did you read them?
Yeah, the trillions unaccounted for is what caught my eye. Trillions may not make much of a difference to you but they do to me.
Umm waste and military expenditure are not the same things. Conflating the two as the same is just silly. We could still increase military spending but still make a concerted effort to reduce waste, no? Whether you think that military expenditure in the first place is waste is an entirely different issue. Saying you can't be republican and against waste because the republicans support military spending is idiotic Also, I cant wait to see Brummie's winner take all attitude in action once/if its a republican president. Will definitely be interesting.
I agree; the extent to which I don't conform to your expectations of a blind partisan will probably be very interesting. But the fact of the matter stands; the GOP wasn't in power in 2009 when Congress passed a law requiring audits. Audits, if you remember, were a staple of the Newt Gingrich Revolution. Yet they overlooked the DoD. I can't imagine why... If you don't believe me, check out the relevant subcommittee hearings on the topic. As I will never tire of saying...prove me wrong.
And I am arguing that it's not. I think Brummie will talk to one of his profs. tomorrow and get back to me.
I don't care who was in power. The article states figures going back to the 90's. Both parties are at fault.
Congress is in charge of oversight and funding. The party in power controls the entire process; it's called a majoritarian democratic institution. Tell me, between 1990 and 2013, which party held Congress longer? And which party has moved to correct the problem in Congress? I can only hope these questions will be answered.
So you really don't care about the hundreds of millions in waste, just that Republicans were in power when it occurred, for the most part? I hope you never need a job in the real world.
My job is to understand why these things happen. Posters on this website, and the American public in general, have shown broad consensus that they don't know much about politics, do not want to educate themselves, and have little room for those of us who make it our career. So if I were to provide a prescription, you'd ignore it anyway. Much better to just explain under what conditions waste decreases.
That's quite different from when I studied Political Science in the early 90's and different from those that sought change in the earlier years. It was about the process then, too, but changing the issues of the day was a focal point instead of your idea that it won't get your team elected. Don't you think if you could find a way to keep expenditures low while keeping the same level of service you could help yourself get elected (god help us) or those ideas could benefit whomever you are working for? Isn't that the goal of public service? To work for the people, not just your team? I don't know where you go to school but I think your professors are failing you and us.