Campaign Promises
Politicians running for office always promise things they’ll never be able to make good on. My favorite is the promise to “get rid of special interests” and “wasteful spending”. John McCain made that promise just last night. I’m sure Obama has made the same promise at some point. They all do.
What a stupid promise. The President doesn’t legislate. Congress does. So to get anything done, the President has to coax a majority of the 400-odd Representatives and 60 out of 100 Senators to act. Every one of those legislators has at least a handful, if not more, of “special interests” to look after. Maybe it’s an industry or spending project that’s important to his/her state. Maybe it’s a corporation that has been especially generous to his/her campaign. Regardless, the President isn’t getting that legislator’s cooperation on legislation if his/her particular “special interest” gets cut.
Even if a President turns out to be a political mastermind and creates massive public pressure on the legislators to abandon some of the ridiculous expenditures in the budget, a lot of what seems special and wasteful to one group of voters is really important to another group. Ie., tax breaks for big oil aren’t “special interests” for all the ordinary folks who depend on Texaco for a paycheck.
In other words, most of what’s in the budget is “important” to some portion of the voting public, regardless of whether or not it’s wasteful. Promising to get rid of it is a waste of air.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
The president has veto power. A president can stop wasteful spending by vetoing any bill that they deem to have frivolous earmarks that taxpayers don’t need to pay for.
That’s true. But what I’m saying is that, in order to get enough votes to reach the president’s desk, a budget bill will almost certainly include money for special interests, pork, logrolling, etc. He can veto every single one. But eventually the government will run out of money and public pressure will force him to sign something or force Congress to override the veto. Either way, I believe this dynamic is why past presidents have been so ineffective at eliminating “waste” and “special interests” from the budget. Clinton’s “line-item veto” was supposed to fix this problem. Too bad the Supremes thought it was unconstitutional. -SF
September 18th, 2008 at 8:18 am
While folks of at least moderate intelligence may be able to understand that, we both know that the special interest argument is really for people that think that rainbows in waterspray is the result of some sort of poisoning of the water. Really, there are people out there like this.
Link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s&eurl=http://failblog.org/page/6/