Shrubbery all set to usher in new era of Robber Barons...

[booley]

I hope to the Gods that somebody is trying to fight this in Congress...

Bush's Most Radical Plan Yet

WIth a vote of hand-picked lobbyists, the president could terminate any federal agency he dislikes
By OSHA GRAY DAVIDSON

If you've got something to hide in Washington, the best place to bury it is in the federal budget. The spending plan that President Bush submitted to Congress this year contains 2,000 pages that outline funding to safeguard the environment, protect workers from injury and death, crack down on securities fraud and ensure the safety of prescription drugs. But almost unnoticed in the budget, tucked away in a single paragraph, is a provision that could make every one of those protections a thing of the past.

The proposal, spelled out in three short sentences, would give the president the power to appoint an eight-member panel called the "Sunset Commission," which would systematically review federal programs every ten years and decide whether they should be eliminated. Any programs that are not "producing results," in the eyes of the commission, would "automatically terminate unless the Congress took action to continue them."

The administration portrays the commission as a well-intentioned effort to make sure that federal agencies are actually doing their job. "We just think it makes sense," says Clay Johnson, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, which crafted the provision. "The goal isn't to get rid of a program -- it's to make it work better."

In practice, however, the commission would enable the Bush administration to achieve what Ronald Reagan only dreamed of: the end of government regulation as we know it. With a simple vote of five commissioners -- many of them likely to be lobbyists and executives from major corporations currently subject to federal oversight -- the president could terminate any program or agency he dislikes. No more Environmental Protection Agency. No more Food and Drug Administration. No more Securities and Exchange Commission.
.......................
Without many of those programs, however, American consumers, workers and investors would be left to the mercy of business. "This is potentially devastating," says Wesley Warren, who served as a senior OMB official in the Clinton administration. "In short order, this could knock out protections that have been built up over a generation."

Others note that the provision goes beyond anything attempted by conservatives in the past. "When you look at this," says Marchant Wentworth, a lobbyist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, "it's almost like the Reagan administration was a trial run.

Ful staory at... http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7265052?&rnd=1114251617470&has-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024

[Jesus Saves]

1. This is the first of I've heard of this 'sunset provision' in the budget

Wow.

[Joebert]

2. Why didn't we let Texas secede?

All these problems would have been their problem? :-)

Ok, seriously though, that sucks.

I downloaded the budget and am trying to find that section so I can post it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Ok this may wake up people up, FINALLY

will be fun to watch

[booley]

4. I am not so sure

first, how many people are even aware of this?

Second, how many people understand what this means? Remember, a good number of Americans don't care what shrub does either becuase they they live under the dellusion that the government won't do anything wrong..or becuase they ar epart of the same idiology and want this to happen.

I wish I could more optimistic

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. The US has historically a series of major wake up calls

I don't know, I am starting to see a lot of disatisfaction... especially among conservs, now we need to get them to point fingers at the radicals... Keep fighting

[booley]

6. ok, let me continue to be a cynic

will it happen in time?

[Terre]

7. HOLY CRAPOLA!

If it isn't one thing, it's something f*kin' else!

This thread should be nominated, and I'll start.

Just one question regarding the Rolling Stone article. Why the heck is it dated May 5, 2005?

[Terre]

8. This from Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) speaking

on 3/17/05 - Congressional Budget Hearing (S2956 and S2957):
http://thomas.loc.gov/

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, for the past few years I have been advancing a concept that embodies fiscal responsibility, a concept that--if enacted--would be a sure sign to hard-working Americans that the Federal Government is serious about fiscal discipline.

{snip}

Over the last few years, I have developed the Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA Act, which is a systematic approach.

Last year, we had a bipartisan hearing on the measure, in which all witnesses supported this new concept. In this year's version of the bill, we are incorporating some of the suggestions made at that hearing.

CARFA would take all of the Federal Government agencies and programs and put them under the review of a bipartisan commission--the members of which are appointed by both Congress and the White House.

The commission would review Federal agencies and programs, and present draft legislation to the Congress to realign or eliminate duplicative, wasteful, outdated, and failed agencies and programs.

Each house of Congress would get one vote on the bill--up or down--without amendment.

For example, if the commission finds 563 programs that are duplicative, wasteful, or already have accomplished their purpose and recommends their realignment or termination, then the Congress would vote--up or down--without amendment to realign or eliminate all of them or keep all of them. And you get only one vote--one vote in the House and one vote in the Senate--to send it forward to the President.

It is a systematic approach to address the specific interests dominating the debate in Washington.

The CARFA approach tries to get at the issue and create a systematic approach by giving the general interest a voice in the system. So now you have these 563 or 284 programs, and people come up to me and say: ``Well, what if you've got an agriculture program that has some benefit to Kansas, that you want to help and keep?''

Then, I look at the program and see that it does help Kansas, but I only get one vote and there are all of these other programs that I really do think need to be eliminated. And it makes the overall goal of balancing the Federal budget more achievable.

What the heck do those last two paragraphs above mean? He's completely lost me.

And in closing he says:

I am pleased that, once again this year, the chairman of the Budget Committee has seen the need for this measure and recognized how vitally important it is, as he has included a sense of the Senate calling for a commission along the lines of CARFA.

It is my hope that we will be able to work with the leadership this year and see the new CARFA systematic approach become a reality.

So, now to find the itsy bitsy paragraph in the Budget bill that they mentioned in the article.