YouCut, your opinions?

Remove all ads!

A little while ago, the Republican House Whip announced a new program, called YouCut. The idea is simple. They've set up a website where they will present 5 spending items every week that have been selected for potential cuts. People can then go online and vote for their (least) favorite item to cut. The republicans will propose it in the house at the end of the week. To vote, all you need is an email address.

Opinions? Reaction? Is it little more than political positioning? Is it a good idea? Are any of these cuts at all likely to make it through the democrat controlled House? Or the Senate afterward?

 

It doesn't sound like a very good idea for me. We all agree that we could stand to make some budget cuts, but I don't think turning each and every potential cut over to the voters -- especially using such an unscientific method -- is really a good idea. A straw poll is no substitute for real work, if you ask me.

 

Why "5?" Can't people decide for themselves what they would like to see cut? Sounds like he's "stacking the deck" to me.

The president has his own ideas about cutting. Think it will get past the party of "hell, no?"

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/24/2326860.aspx

 

That's about the intellectual level of the debate YouCut will generate i.e. it is a harebrained idea better quickly forgotten.

Iirc with public polls about questions like that is how California cut its tax revenue and ruined its budget to a level when they almost cannot function as a state any more. Brilliant idea.

 

To me it seems like an Republican attempt to gain the advantage that the democrats have had on the web (especially during the Obama campaign). In theory it seems nice but some of the motions that come forth are bound to be unworkable. Of course it's easy for them now to put forth even brain dead legislation when the large democratic majority is bound to vote them down, but if they ever capture the house or let alone the white house you can bet YouCut will fall to obscurity. Practically speaking I think YouCut will probably do so even before the next midterm elections.

That said it's an interesting idea and it might be worth it to follow it for a while to see how it develops in practice. Also it will be interesting to see if any proposals submitted by the public will be recognized in this program.

 

Chandos, Ragusa, I think your posts actually answer each other. They don't just hand the entire budget over and ask what to cut because idiots would cut things like major infrastructure spending, paying the FBI, etc. Instead, they select reasonable, sustainable cuts. At least, in theory. They may also stack the deck, and probably plan to use all the Dem votes against spending cuts against them, even if they're stupid cuts.

As for Chandos's claim that Obama has his own ideas of 'cutting', I don't think those have worked out so well so far. I seem to recall Congress's PAYGO rule has been largely ignored, with everything deemed 'emergency spending' if they can't find a way to pay for it. A classic example being the Health Care bill. They tried to cut spending, I'm sure they did, and initial estimates even said it might work, but even before the bill went up for vote, we knew it'd cost more than it saved. And now he wants his own line-item veto power. This is, apparently, the same thing the Reps tried to give Bush three years ago, but the Dems killed it. Now Obama wants it. Personally, I'd rather see him shut the Federal Government down for a few days like Clinton did. Then I'd believe he was serious on spending cuts.

 

While not a great idea, it is no where near as bad as some are making it out to be.

 

I don't think it's a great idea if the R's really think they'll get some of these cuts. However, if they are doing this to get a better read on the public (read: constituents) prior to the election, then this is smart planning. So in other words, if the reason the R's are doing this is for the reason they are saying, it's a bad idea. If they have an ulterior motive, it might be smart politics.

As for the line item veto idea, I think that's just as poor an idea now as I did back when Bush wanted it. Surely, in the present climate, bipartizanship is a rare thing, but adding a line item veto would completely destroy any hope for a compromise at any future point. Why would two groups compromise, if the president could just sign into law the parts he liked?

 

Its incredibly disappointing that the government cannot decide how to do things. Is that not why we elect these officials in the first place? While I'll admit I like having a say in what happens, that's why I vote to elect these officials in the first place!
Also, this is just more proof about how completely out of touch with the public these politicians are. They don't know what to do and need to ask the public. It just seems like they're not doing their jobs.

 

Isn't this what elections are for and why people should contact their representatives?

 

T2, that's what I was trying so poorly to get at. I vote to elect officials to make these decisions for me. They're not doing that job.

 

Oh definitely. Bringing things put into elected representative's hands also to the polls is redundant. Worse, and beyond waste, it ties the hands of elected representatives and denies them the chance and means to do what they have been elected for. It is stupid by any account. If you elect representatives, and then tie their hands, what are they good for? That way they can hardly be effective.

Considering the size states and countries have today direct democracy is most of the time impractical. It works when you can assemble folks in an amphitheatre where they can debate, but not in a state with millions of citizens. Direct democracy on so large a scale is IMO a silly idea - silly because it can't work. And then there is the point that usually citizens are not that well informed about the decisions they are called to vote on, resulting predictably in unintended consequences. Oh golly gee! Insufficient tax revenue? How come! Who could have foreseen that! There are many un- and ill-informed people out there.

As I said, IMO California is where it is because of such idiotic direct initiatives. In some TV interview after one such initiative I heard one Californian say that he voted for tax cuts because he is against waste, fraud and abuse - as if that were budget items. Moron. He should have been crucified on the spot.

 

Wow, sometimes the gulf between the way you and I see things amazes me.

Maybe I didn't understand the point of this, but I didn't get the impression that this was in any way tying the hands of the elected representatives. I personally want my rep to find out what I care about as he/she is working for me and I want them to represent my interests. I am not electing them to a job and then letting them do whatever the hell they want (clearly a reason I do not like the Obama administration).

As to crucifying voters who are in favor of cutting taxes, you have that 180 degrees incorrect. We should be crucifying our reps for ignoring the message the voters send them. Cutting taxes is a clear message that spending needs to be cut also and waste, fraud, and abuse should be our first cuts. Of course, many reps (dems and repubs) ignore this simple principle and borrow the money instead.

For most people with an inkling of common sense they do not spend more then what they have. For some reason when you become elected people lose this knowledge.

CA is in a bad spot because for decades they have refused to reign in spending. I personally hope the rest of the nation has the will to not bail them out. CA needs to make some really difficult decisions and choices and the longer they wait, the harder it will be.

 

As has already been said, this is all about the Republicans trying to show that they are willing to "listen to the people". And then no matter what the Dems do, the Reps will try to make them look bad - if the Dems vote against the cuts, they are going against the people's wishes, and if they vote for the cuts, then the Reps will try to say they they are the party with the real power. Not that that strategy will necessarily work.

 

We just had a tax cut. I think this whole debate (within the country), is a complete sham. I am more concerned (really concerned, not just a talking point) about the federal debt. A lot of the states are already underwater and if the Feds have too much debt, they won't be able to save them. That means that many citizens will lose basic services. It's funny to hear this debate about tax cuts when the government is going broke.

Yes, by all means, turn over some rocks and discover all the fraud and waste in government contracts and corporate welfare. They can start in Iraq, the "black hole" of American tax payer waste.

 

One of the reasons Clinton was so popular is because he paid close attention to polls. I think (note: my opinion) he rarely made a decision without consulting a poll first and almost never went against the poll. There are times polls should be ignored; an excellent quote Mandela from Invictus:

 

My point is exceedingly simple: Waste, fraud and abuse - if they occur - are not addressed with tax cuts. They are addressed by governance and oversight, and if necessary, prosecutions.

The guy simply vented his vague displeasure and used it as an excuse to vote for cutting taxes. That's not even going the easy way - that's equivalent to kicking his dog because he was angry. I want him crucified for that asinine reaction, not because he was for cutting taxes. He put as much intellectual effort in his vote as when choosing between Pizza and Noodles for dinner.

Ugh, instead of waste, fraud and abuse .... I'd rather have a tax cut.

BTA,
compare yourself to Europe.

 

Did you ever wonder why in the history of mankind and government these "basic services" have only become necessary over the last twenty-five years? Government needs to get out of the "cradle to grave" care business.

 

That would be incorrect. I'm a bit older than 25 years and since I can remember we've had police and fire protection, roads to drive cars and trucks on, and public schools to learn in. Seems to me, these basic services were here before I arrived.