for the uninitiatied, there are two types of committees in Congress, authorizing committees and the Appropriations committees. Since Congress has the sole constitutional power of the purse, and the power that comes with working on the committees that determine which programs get how much money. As Captain Ed notes:
This proposal intends to create a rule for Appropriations that once applied for the intelligence committees. Prior to 9/11, members could only serve a certain length on those panels due to a history of arguably excessive collegiality between the intelligence communities and their oversight committees. After 9/11, however, those rules were suspended when it clearly showed that the lack of experience in intelligence by members of these panels had kept significant issues from being recognized before disaster struck.One of the implicit assumptions, however, in Norquist's is that it is only the appropriators who need to be reined in. Just about every member of Congress has been guilty, at one time or another, of asking for an earmark, of seeking appropriations, rightly or wrongly, for their district. After all, one of the jobs of a Member of Congress, in the eyes of their constituents, is to bring home the pork.
Will that same law of unintended consequences strike the appropriations process? Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute thinks it will, as does the spokesman for House Appropriations chair Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA). It's difficult to see why, however. One can hardly equate budgeting with the complexities of intelligence work, and if there is one skill that appears to be universally possessed by members of Congress, it's the ability to spend money. Much of the actual skilled work in this process gets accomplished by staffers anyway, while the political decisions get made by the members.
But as an idea, I think the proposal has some merit. The problem of course is getting the change through both Chambers. Good Luck.
Hat Tip: Captain Ed
No comments:
Post a Comment