The Senate’s Doctor No

[Peter1469]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/27/AR2008072701441.html?wpisrc=newsletter


"If we pass a new program, we either ought to get rid of the old program or we ought to make it to where it blends with this other one so it's effective," Coburn said in an interview last week. "Almost everything that they've offered has a duplicate program out there that they're not either eliminating or changing."
Coburn has turned his office into its own accountability unit. Aides must comb every piece of legislation headed to the floor for potential government waste.

Sounds reasonable to me

His staff estimates that waste and fraud costs taxpayers $300 billion a year. Next month, for example, Coburn will release a report on alleged Justice Department waste, accusing the agency of spending $312 million on conferences this decade.

I would expect that much of this money is spent on trial advocacy courses for trial attorneys which are a good idea; however, they tend to be held in very nice locations. 

And what to other legislator’s say about this annoying habit of attempting to cut waste?

"What do the constituents in your state expect of you? I believe they expect me to get some things done. I don't believe they're looking for 'no.' They're looking for 'yes,' " said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who fought Coburn last year over an earmark for a Nebraska-based military contractor.

But, Sen. Nelson- what does the Constitution permit you to spend money on- other than your own money that is?  Hint: US Const, Art I, Sec 8.

[Michael Aldrich]

As much as it pains me to say this, I have to side with Senator Coburn on this issue. On everything else, though, he’s a total crackpot.

[Peter1469]

I have not followed the guy.  I was happily surprised to run across the article this morning.  In an effort to continue the conversation, or be lazy on my part- take your pick, what other issues does the senator stand for that you put into the crackpot category? 

[Michael Aldrich]

I have not followed the guy.  I was happily surprised to run across the article this morning.  In an effort to continue the conversation, or be lazy on my part- take your pick, what other issues does the senator stand for that you put into the crackpot category? 

He believes that homosexuality is the biggest threat to American freedom. Forget the Muslim guys that killed 3,000 Americans in 2001, let’s worry about men who bum-hump each other in the privacy of their bedroom.

Republicans are backwards when it comes to social issues. Some have it right when it comes to government spending, though. Like John McCain, Tom Coburn, and Jeff Flake (congressman from Arizona).

[Peter1469]

I have not followed the guy.  I was happily surprised to run across the article this morning.  In an effort to continue the conversation, or be lazy on my part- take your pick, what other issues does the senator stand for that you put into the crackpot category? 

He believes that homosexuality is the biggest threat to American freedom. Forget the Muslim guys that killed 3,000 Americans in 2001, let’s worry about men who bum-hump each other in the privacy of their bedroom.

Republicans are backwards when it comes to social issues. Some have it right when it comes to government spending, though. Like John McCain, Tom Coburn, and Jeff Flake (congressman from Arizona).

Thanks- then I certainly agree on the crackpot comment. 

I am a fiscal and national security (paleo) conservative and social libertarian – although I may not go so far as decriminalization of drugs, I would make possession crimes violations instead of misdemeanors. 

[Michael Aldrich]

I have not followed the guy.  I was happily surprised to run across the article this morning.  In an effort to continue the conversation, or be lazy on my part- take your pick, what other issues does the senator stand for that you put into the crackpot category? 

He believes that homosexuality is the biggest threat to American freedom. Forget the Muslim guys that killed 3,000 Americans in 2001, let’s worry about men who bum-hump each other in the privacy of their bedroom.

Republicans are backwards when it comes to social issues. Some have it right when it comes to government spending, though. Like John McCain, Tom Coburn, and Jeff Flake (congressman from Arizona).

Thanks- then I certainly agree on the crackpot comment. 

I am a fiscal and national security (paleo) conservative and social libertarian – although I may not go so far as decriminalization of drugs, I would make possession crimes violations instead of misdemeanors. 

I guess I’m a fiscal moderate and social liberal. I believe tax cuts mean absolutely nothing without spending cuts. I wouldn’t say no to restoring Clinton-era tax rates, either…

Some have called me a Rockefeller Republican. I prefer to call myself a [Theodore] Roosevelt Republican.

[Peter1469]

I can agree on the Theodore label. 

You are right about taxes to an extent.  Tax cuts can increase the economy and generate more tax revenue.  But you are correct- if you don't cut spending it doesn't matter a bit. 

[Michael Aldrich]

I can agree on the Theodore label. 

You are right about taxes to an extent.  Tax cuts can increase the economy and generate more tax revenue.  But you are correct- if you don't cut spending it doesn't matter a bit. 

I didn’t support the Bush tax cuts because I knew he wouldn’t cut spending. This administration reeks of fiscal irresponsibility.

The military budget needs to be reviewed, in my opinion. A military should be used for defense and not for policing the rest of the world.

[Peter1469]

I agree that the US military should not be policing the world with the caveat- where US national security interests are not implicated. 

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

I think it's great that someone wants to eliminate waste and fraud ... but why wasn't he doing this for the past 7 years -- especially the rampant contractor fraud that has taken place in Iraq

I will say one thing in defense of the conferences being held in *nice* places ... when you gather several thousand people together for a conference -- it has to be he held in a city that has the conference facilities and sufficient hotels to house the conference attendees. So these requirements limits conferences to large cities, which by definition are the "nice* places.

[Peter1469]

good point on the conference facilities gaunt.