SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,275
edits
Changes
Talk:Backdoor spending authority (view source)
Revision as of 18:53, March 1, 2013
, 18:53, March 1, 2013→Statutory basis: comment on inside baseball
:::Simpson-Bowles report calls tax expenditures backdoor spending. While open discussion of this may be something new, tax expenditures are the result of authorizing legislation that brings total federal spending in above or below baseline projections. Tax cuts must be "paid for" (since Gramm-Rudman). Hence tax cuts, loopholes, provisions, incentives, etc. have become "tax expenditures" needing budget authorization from congress, and its own article entry, too.
:::Simpson-Bowles report calls tax expenditures backdoor spending. While open discussion of this may be something new, tax expenditures are the result of authorizing legislation that brings total federal spending in above or below baseline projections. Tax cuts must be "paid for" (since Gramm-Rudman). Hence tax cuts, loopholes, provisions, incentives, etc. have become "tax expenditures" needing budget authorization from congress, and its own article entry, too.
:::The most glaring reason for confusion is the radically different tracks the Rules Committees take under different party control. And readers should be able to understand how a statute law can be entirely dispensed with by procedural vote. If I can be partisan for moment, if the Republicans are to be criticized for anything, it is not even attempting reform such a nakedly abusive process that they rail against when they had effective one party control for 6 years (2001-07). Their hands aren't clean, either. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 01:13, 13 January 2013 (EST)
:::The most glaring reason for confusion is the radically different tracks the Rules Committees take under different party control. And readers should be able to understand how a statute law can be entirely dispensed with by procedural vote. If I can be partisan for moment, if the Republicans are to be criticized for anything, it is not even attempting reform such a nakedly abusive process that they rail against when they had effective one party control for 6 years (2001-07). Their hands aren't clean, either. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 01:13, 13 January 2013 (EST)
*''"This whole topic is "inside baseball" and can be very complicated."''
This is a good way to put it. The point is: Louise Slaughter and the Democrats took a Capitol Hill [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Explain_jargon#WP:JARGON Jargon phrase] and made legislative language out of it. And it reveals a way of thinking: Appropriations Committees of the 60s and 70s (and before) complained of "backdoor spending"; now members ''seek'' ways to sneak permanent spending authority beyond the reach of elected officials. IMHO, this is un-democratic, if not anti-democratic. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 13:53, 1 March 2013 (EST)
==Moved from User talk:Aschlalfy==
==Moved from User talk:Aschlalfy==