The maximum spending levels are determined by the Authorization Committees. Actual spending levels are determined by the Authorization Committees who take the spending requested by the Federal Agencies and add the spending requested by members of Congress (earmarks). Eliminate the earmarks and you reduce actual spending.
That's not how the Constitution reads, nor is it what they say on the
House website.
When considering appropriations measures, Congress is exercising the power granted to it under the Constitution, which states, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
Total new budget authority and outlays are also distributed among both the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over spending, thereby setting spending ceilings for each committee (see “Allocations” section below). 12 Once the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations receive their spending ceilings, they separately distribute the funding among their respective subcommittees, providing a spending ceiling for each subcommittee.
But you could be right. I don't know much about the process, and am relying only on what was written by a 9 term congresscritter and what is on the House website. Your source?
I notice your signature mentions Dr. Paul's position on abortion. Tell me something: do you agree or disagree with
his statement on that subject:
Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce.
In a world in which we have had court cases about whether or not being too near to a school with a gun, growing your own wheat or cannabis, building your own machine gun, rape, assisted suicide, and being an indigenous California toad are interstate commerce, I am beginning to think
Justice Thomas was right when he said that the current use of the commerce clause "makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are 'few and defined,' while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.'"
So, is a partial birth abortion interstate commerce in your view, or did Ron Paul go around the Constitutional limits on federal power by voting for the federal partial birth abortion ban? I think he exceeded his power, and he thinks so too, but did it anyway.
“That’s not how the Constitution reads, nor is it what they say on the House website.”
The Constitution is generally silent on the actual process of creating a budget. Hence this process is left to the House and the Senate to define.
Here’s a primer prepared by the Congressional Research Service that explains the process and I don’t find anything here inconsistent with what I said.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34649.pdf
“Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce.” - Ron Paul
There are other statements given by Ron Paul that I think are more appropriate to base a discussion of his views on abortion.
For example, his website provides this position:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
You’ll also find a more complete discription of his position and some links to the legislation he has sponsored here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act
Summarizing Ron Paul would pass a law stating that life begins at conception and that the unborn are to be considered ‘persons’. It leaves the enforcement up to the states. This law would also remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the courts.
Here’s the problem. Since enforcement of the right of the unborn would be left up to the individual states, then some states could act to protect such life while others might not. IOW, an unborn person would have different rights in different states. In one state abortion could be considered murder and in another, well, nothing.
I see very little difference between Ron Paul and John Kerry (or any other democrat) in that they personally oppose abortion but they are unwilling to act to stop it. I do not believe that one can take the position that abortion is murder and also take the position that it could be prohibited in some places and sometimes but also be allowed in some places and sometimes. Hence my tag line.
Now Ron’s argument that the Commerce clause has been overused, even abused, is sound. However, I would base any federal enforcement upon the 14th Amendment and not the Commerce Clause so I find his arguments interesting, but, simply irrelevent.