Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) vowed to force the White House to accept delivery of a new
presidential helicopter Obama says he doesn't need and doesn't want.
The helicopter program, which cost $835 million this year, supports 800
jobs in Hinchey's district. "I do think there's a good chance we can
save it," he said.
Here is much more. The Congressional Democrats don't like Obama's proposed "cuts" in spending.
As someone who went to college in Hinchey’s district and knows how awful the employment situation is there, I don’t particularly blame him for fighting for his district, even if it is at the expense of the greater good. I do wonder how much of this is for show and how much of it isn’t. Exactly what does Hinchey plan to do to “force” the president to accept the helicopter?
“Exactly what does Hinchey plan to do to “force” the president to accept the helicopter?”
Simple. Funds for the acquisition program will be authorized and appropriated by Congress, though not in the president’s budget proposal. This has been happening with the C-17 for years.
I’m from Hinchey’s district too. I understand why he’s doing it. Hinchey is seriously liberal in a district that except for Ithaca (which is pretty flagrantly gerrymandered in) is definitely well to the right of him. I more or less like Hinchey but because of the reasons I like him he is only electable because he brings home wasteful military spending like this. I wish it was politically viable to have at the very least more useful make work programs but so many people are powerfully psychologically invested in enormous military budgets that real military cuts are a non-starter.
He should give it to Bernanke.
Never forget, “the President proposes, Congress disposes”. No Presidential fiscal proposal survives first contact with the enemy. I don’t doubt Obama’s sincerity, but as a former Senator/earmarker, surely he is aware of the harsh reality of appropriations.
Obama gives me lots of reasons to complain. His greatest flaw, his words and actions are disconnected from reality. Since his assumption of office, he has outsourced every budgetary activity to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Is that because it’s a job American Presidents won’t do?
A smile and a shoeshine is only going to go so far. At some point, he will have to state to his own party, “If you send me this bill, I will veto it.” Or maybe he won’t. That is a true test of Presidential leadership, It’s a test that George Bush failed. While Obama might have the confidence to do it, I think he might be too much in love with his public image as the dear leader to carry it out.
And just to be bipartisan and centrist, House Speaker Newt Gingrich made sure that there was always money in the Pentagon budget each year to purchase a half a dozen Georgia built C130s. Airplanes not requested by the Air Force.
It seems clear that Hinchey believes that it is appropriate for government representatives to establish an entitlement for their community, one which dictates what they will supply to the economy. But on the demand side, how do you think Hinchey would respond if one were to dictate to his his community what were to be demanded in goods and services.
I’m imagining, for example, that in exchange for a guaranteed obligation of purchases of this ~800 million helicopter program, government officials will “force” local benefactors of this industry to purchase only vehicles sold by GM or Chrysler, insurance services only from AIG, and other goods and services, of course, only from government sponsored industries.
Separation of powers is a feature, not a bug.
It’s somewhat ironic that the British fought a rather ugly civil war over who had the power to lay taxes and disburse revenues, the executive (the king) or the legislature. Today the British live under a system where the first minister, a member of the legislature, exercises executive power backed by a majority in the house. It has long been argued that this system is “more efficient”, which it arguably is.
We are now dependent on Presidential leadership, as the President is the only federal official directly elected by the general public. Or, we are dependent on the mass of the pubic to rise up and throw the rascals out of Congress.
Sadly, it usually takes some really bad stuff for either event to occur.
I too am from Hinchey’s district. The helicopter is currently being made at Lockheed Martin in Owego. Most of the well-to-do people in the area are employed by Lockheed. Lockheed is one of the few things that keeps the Binghamton area surviving.
Now with all of that said the program still needs to be cut. The area needs it, but the country as a whole is worse. Hinchey is smart to try and have the program stay in place, but it harms the country.
Programs that benefit only a select few need to eliminated. The beneficiaries will without a doubt complain. However if these programs are not cut, no President will be able to balance the budget.
“Yancey Ward FTW”
Stop it! I can’t keep up with all of these damn neologisms. Everybody, stop it. Please.
Aside from the fiscal and procedural aspects of this, one has to wonder about the game that Obama is playing here. Surely the White Hose staff — no fools — expected exactly this kind of reaction: they would propose minisucule cuts in pretty clearly redundant or pointless programs, and would receive howls of bipartisan outrage.
But if this reaction was predictable, why propose the cuts (which may well evaporate)?
It could be a collusive game: the cuts might be a kind of kabuki, intended to ‘show seriousness’ without any actual consequences. But it’s hard to see why the Congressional players would participate in pure kabuki, since it makes them look venial and narrow minded.
Could it be a non-collusive game in which the Obama team decides to build public credibility and to lay the ground for some later moves? After all, Obama looks both reasonable and moderate here: reasonable because he and his staff are showing that the cuts really do make sense; and moderate, because he didn’t propose large aggressive moves. By predictably howling, Congress weakens its position in future rounds of the budget-shaping game, but Congressmen being who they are, they can’t help themselves — and Obama and his advisors know it.
We’ll see!
“Programs that benefit only a select few need to eliminated.”
The question for me is how to do this politically with some permanence and principle. Mathematically, I’m not sure how I can get worked up over a billion or so for helicopters while we are going to give trillions of dollars to investment banks who have demonstrated an inability to invest or bank.
Emotionally, I can’t get excited about a president who seems to cut programs and shift losses for politics rather than principle. Picking different beneficiaries for largesse every few years isn’t the answer.
Comments on this entry are closed.