Friday Blogwrap

Baldilocks puts the Bush AWOL charge to rest, of course that won't stop ignoramuses who simply refuse to educate themselves about the military.

A Spending Supermajority Rule in the Wall Street Journal, by Michael Rappaport and John McGinnis, is recommended reading.

While some have advocated a balanced budget amendment to address this type of problem, we argue that:

A better structural reform would involve a spending limitation amendment. Such an amendment could address excessive spending directly by requiring that Congress obtain a two thirds or three fifths majority to pass any new spending laws. Spending could also be precisely defined as all net payments that move from the Treasury to other hands.

Our proposed amendment would avoid two kinds of criticisms that have been made in the context of balanced budget amendments. First, some critics might fear that a supermajority rule would perversely provide additional leverage to a minority favoring higher spending because that minority can threaten to shut down the government unless additional spending is enacted. As we learned during the Clinton era, citizens understandably fear government shut downs because the government’s core functions sustain the social order. Our amendment would deprive holdouts of additional leverage because it would allow a mere majority to pass spending laws so long as total spending remained less than ninety percent of the previous year’s total. A congressional majority could therefore prevent a government shut down, but there would still be pressure eventually to pass spending under the supermajority rule because Congress will almost always wants to spend at levels higher than ninety percent.

Sounds good on the face of it, however California's constitution, almost uniquely among the states, requires a two-thirds vote in each house of the Legislature to pass the annual budget bill. Since it's rare for either major party to have a two-thirds majority, the supermajority requirement is a recipe for gridlock and partisan gamesmanship.

Would the Congress fare any better? I am not sure given the acrimony and bitter partisanship of the Senate in it's current configuration. It seems tit-for-tat will continue until both parties are exhausted or one gains 60 seats.

Gov Schwarzenegger 's Proposition 56, the Budget Accountability Act, requiring a balanced budget seeks to remedy our woes and it is looking likely to pass.

Jay Caruso often gleans news tidbits others miss, which is why he is a must read, this one is amusing:

The economy adds 112,000 jobs in January, and the unemployment rate drops to 5.6% and to some that is bad news.

Sure, the rise was not as much as expected, but only the Bush haters could attempt to say it's not good.

Incidentally, 5.6% was the rate of unemployment in November of 1996 when the economy was supposedly doing wonderfully. Isn't it amazing how circumstances change?

5.6% unemployment in 1996: "The economy is doing great!!"
5.6% unemployment in 2004: "This is no good!!"

Oh the humanity! Horrors, what shall become of us! /leftie melodrama off

Which closes out this blogosphere snapshot in time; leaving us with feelings of dread and A Sinking Feeling. (Brilliant Andrew!, simply brilliant)

Posted by feste at February 6, 2004 11:32 AM | TrackBack