YouCut

May 28, 2010 12:21 PM

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) has set up YouCut, a website where users can suggest and vote on potential cuts in federal spending, which will be put up to be voted on by the House. Cuts selected by the website include a freeze on federal non-military employees raises (pending a vote), and a cut in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, a welfare service of the stimulus fund. The cut failed in a vote). The House Democrats have proposed that America Speaking Out (previously) be offered as an option to cut for the next round.
posted by mccarty.tim (77 comments total)

Sounds great. At last, we can have the Sarah Palins of the world cutting funding for researching fruit fly genetics and increasing funding for autism and downs syndrome research.
posted by weston at 12:25 PM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]

Every US citizen has a patriotic duty to go over there and suggest that we cut our military budget by a third.
posted by Mister_A at 12:25 PM on May 28, 2010 [37 favorites]

I see no option for "Cut military spending, which comprises an enormous percentage of the budget, by 75%." Which is weird; it's almost as if they're not really serious about cutting spending.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:25 PM on May 28, 2010 [58 favorites]

I looked for the unedited list of suggested cuts, but for some reason I can't find it. I'm sure it's there though. Right? Cause this is real participation by We The People, and not a steaming pile of managed astroturf bullshit. Right?
posted by rusty at 12:25 PM on May 28, 2010 [9 favorites]

Really? Fuck Eric Cantor. That asshole. Federal employee here, my tiny annual bump leaves me losing ground. The tiny raise I do get doesn't keep up with inflation, and now let's put that to a vote? I'll go click on a web site where your raise is denied.
posted by fixedgear at 12:26 PM on May 28, 2010 [29 favorites]

I am all for research on fruit flies and Down Syndrome. I'm all for light rail. I am not for giving away the store to the military-industrial complex.
posted by Mister_A at 12:26 PM on May 28, 2010 [5 favorites]

Pope I'm with you but I think cutting 1/3 every year for the next hundred years may be more achievable.
posted by Mister_A at 12:27 PM on May 28, 2010

Loosen federal procurement regs and I'll personally save 100 million a year.
posted by fixedgear at 12:29 PM on May 28, 2010

I find the results for googling YouCut to be a bit unfortunate.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:29 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

Hey I'll be one of your crooked contractors, fixedgear!
posted by Mister_A at 12:30 PM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]

America Speaking Out is fucking hilarious, though.

I'm fully in favor of federally funding humor websites. In fact, I can think of no better use of my tax dollars.
posted by empath at 12:31 PM on May 28, 2010

it's almost as if they're not really serious about cutting spending

Well, yeah, it's political theatre and a bit of a sick joke, really, when Bush saddled taxpayers with $5 trillion in public debt.

If Republican lawmakers were genuinely serious about spending, they wouldn't have allowed Bush to commit this kind of fraud in the first place, back when their party was in charge of all three branches of government.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:33 PM on May 28, 2010 [27 favorites]

Wait, you can only vote Yes. You can't vote No for stupid cuts (cut non-essential research - like, you know, Volcano monitoring. Because volcanos are NEVER a problem). So, really, you have no idea what people actually think.
posted by redbeard at 12:38 PM on May 28, 2010 [3 favorites]

I voted for the Rural Broadcast thing, since it seemed to be the most harmless. None of them seem too serious, but the one I think might be most malicious is the "Remove Funds from places that do silly research," especially since some of those did sound important ("Studying Icelandic Arctic environment in the Viking Age" sounds useful for climatology), and it's not clear if those agencies do important research that would suffer from losing funding. I'd like it better if Cantor was doing it one university at a time and naming names.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:38 PM on May 28, 2010

I am all for research on fruit flies and Down Syndrome. I'm all for light rail. I am not for giving away the store to the military-industrial complex.

I'm with you. I guess I obscured my real point, which is that I'm increasingly pessimistic about the capacity of the lay public to correctly assess funding policy or even any policy. I really try to pay attention, read as much as time allows, and think about things carefully, and I'm still constantly bumping up against the limits of my knowledge. Unless I'm just unusually dim and slow at processing information (and there is some evidence to the contrary), the only conclusion I can come to at the moment is that good representative government and a class of policy professionals who put serious time into deeply understanding complex issues is actually a considerably better plan than more direct democracy.
posted by weston at 12:41 PM on May 28, 2010 [5 favorites]

a cut in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Christ, what an asshole.
posted by R. Mutt at 12:41 PM on May 28, 2010 [24 favorites]

Jesus God do I hate Eric Cantor. “Hate waste? Prone to knee-jerk reactions about disingenuous descriptions of federal expenditures? Send the Republicans your phone number so they can pander to you directly!”

I’ve got one cut to suggest, though: how about we move this phishing operation off of house.gov and to the RNC website?
posted by Garak at 12:44 PM on May 28, 2010 [13 favorites]

If it were Georg Cantor proposing the cuts, they would just cut slices out of the middle of the programs, removing the middlemen. Then they would cut smaller slices out of each of the parts remaining, a little bit, every term. Also, you would go mad from looking at the budget.
posted by adipocere at 12:46 PM on May 28, 2010 [31 favorites]

I see Eric Cantor voted $485 million dollars for a second engine for the F-35. Apparently pork for Rolls Royce is more important than giving actual food to real people. Also for such an internet savy guy, why won't he share his profile
posted by humanfont at 12:53 PM on May 28, 2010 [9 favorites]

The democratization of blind, barbaric vindictiveness! Yay!
posted by blucevalo at 1:05 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

is this where we're smug about politics? I'd like to say that I got to call Bobby Jindal a strong advocate of big government at the Federal level today because of his callout to Obama.
posted by boo_radley at 1:07 PM on May 28, 2010 [3 favorites]

Mister_A: "Every US citizen has a patriotic duty to go over there and suggest that we cut our military budget by a third."


Pope Guilty: "I see no option for "Cut military spending, which comprises an enormous percentage of the budget, by 75%." Which is weird; it's almost as if they're not really serious about cutting spending."


Yeah, I pretty much posted that to my O($EQE@#@@! congresscritter's facebook page when he posted the link. In the original iteration there was no place to put suggestions. I was told to go to his official House page and submit suggestions.

rusty: "I looked for the unedited list of suggested cuts, but for some reason I can't find it. I'm sure it's there though. Right? Cause this is real participation by We The People, and not a steaming pile of managed astroturf bullshit. Right?"

Uhhuh. They're awful proud of themselves for not giving raises to a bunch of Federal employees. We're gonna save $50 million whohoo!


boo_radley: "is this where we're smug about politics? I'd like to say that I got to call Bobby Jindal a strong advocate of big government at the Federal level today because of his callout to Obama."

I don't know about you, but this is where I spit bile at TeaB*ggers and other useful idiots. Everybody's against big government until they need it.
posted by lysdexic at 1:18 PM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]

I see no option for "Cut military spending, which comprises an enormous percentage of the budget, by 75%." Which is weird; it's almost as if they're not really serious about cutting spending.

I went directly to the "submit your idea" link and put that in as my suggestion. Not that they'll ever consider it when there's a whopping $3.8 million to save on "useless research".
posted by briank at 1:22 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

I love how they used a photo of Martha's Vineyard for "Reduce Spending on Non-Essential and Questionable Research" and San Francisco for "Consolidate and Reduce Funding for Federal Advisory Committees," and that the Vineyard and SF projects are the only cases in those two options where they mention specific locations. Here's your chance to screw over those costal liberals and their ivory tower intellectualism and San Francisco values, Real Americans!
posted by oinopaponton at 1:23 PM on May 28, 2010

Hello! I am writing this from the wonderful state of California.

Before you decide to abdicate your responsibilities as lawmakers, please take a close look at how California fared when our "initiative" system attempted to submit specific budgetary decisions to the a popular vote.

There is a reason why we choose representatives. There's a lot of thought behind it, and a lot of historical testing. We've tried other ways - including mob rule - and this is what we came up with. It has its flaws - tremendous flaws. But it's the best we found so far.

Please do not ignore the hard won lessons of history for the sake of a temporary political advantage. You are not a genuine public servant if you do so.

Thank you.

VS - A voter in CA.
posted by VikingSword at 1:25 PM on May 28, 2010 [9 favorites]

I do find it weird that they're all "BOO DEMOCRATIC AGENDA! SMALLER GOVERNMENT! DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW! FREE MARKETS AND SELF RELIANCE!" But then when there actually is a huge oil accident that makes the oil industry and/or offshore drilling look economically and environmentally dangerous, they demand "WHY ISN'T OBAMA REACTING FASTER AND TAKING RESPONSIBILITY?"

Also, hurf durf "WHO NEEDS VOLCANO MONITORING?"
posted by mccarty.tim at 1:28 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

Given that there's no way for the public to generate the proposed budget cuts, this is pretty much a farce. Where's the option to cut all funding for enforcement of anti-cannabis laws? Oh, right, that would immediately float to the top of the list, can't have that.
posted by mullingitover at 1:37 PM on May 28, 2010 [4 favorites]

studying the tension between privacy and features in online social networks like Facebook ($498,000)

This is essential spending. If we define essential as something I've been obsessing over.
posted by edbles at 1:38 PM on May 28, 2010

I suggested we take money from Defense and/or America Speaking Out and put it towards food stamps and comprehensive sex education. Expect it to be posted up next week.

What would be totally boss is if they would link this up to America Speaking out and let users vote up their favorite ideas. I expect democracy would pick great things.
posted by mccarty.tim at 1:38 PM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]

the only conclusion I can come to at the moment is that good representative government and a class of policy professionals who put serious time into deeply understanding complex issues is actually a considerably better plan than more direct democracy.

Bit of a derail, but there really is no such choice in the real world.

There are so many well-funded players representing so many powerful, vested interests angling and lobbying and politicking and PR-ing on behalf of any given issue of the moment (from every conceivable specific, micro-level and mundane legislative point to every macro-level long-term issue) that what rules is influence and the money to buy it.

Everything else, such as abstract "choices" between wonk-based policy shaping vs. activist-based direct democracy, is really an illusion. Take any given issue (health care, banking, big oil, immigration, etc.) in the news today and one finds, the deeper one digs, that the outcome is almost always a foregone conclusion: big money and big corporate lobbying will dominate the final result, and despite some of the best attempts by experienced legislators who seem to have the people's interest at heart, to bring about real reform, the goal remains elusive.

Take financial reform. If ever something needed reform, given the past two years, this is it. And yet despite evidence of systemic fraud and massively risky unregulated markets, many of the people tasked with oversight are continually outmaneuvered by the lobbyists (who outnumber lawmakers five to one). So the dream of an army of educated policy professionals meets the reality of an all pervasive influence-peddling power-bloc.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 1:38 PM on May 28, 2010 [3 favorites]

Yeah, whoever knew that having a system where you pay to talk to senators would make it tough to reform the very people who keep all the money?
posted by mccarty.tim at 1:40 PM on May 28, 2010

Federal employee here, my tiny annual bump leaves me losing ground. The tiny raise I do get doesn't keep up with inflation, and now let's put that to a vote? I'll go click on a web site where your raise is denied.

It should be noted that there at least 5-10 bills out there to stop congressional pay raises, cut Member pay, and/or cut Member office allowances, and Mr. Cantor does not appear to be a cosponsor of any of them.
posted by naoko at 1:44 PM on May 28, 2010 [3 favorites]

Refocus National Archives Activities On Preserving Federal Records
$10 million in Savings in the First Year
($100 Million Over Ten Years)
Summary: No one really cares about non-federal stuff, and who needs libraries when we have the internet?

Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Savings estimated at $30 billion.
Summary: Let's control these terrible Big Government entities! They should be more like Big Business!

Terminate Broadcasting Facility Grant Programs that Have Completed their Mission
$25 million in Savings in the First Year
($250 million Over Ten Years)
Summary: These are almost done with anyway, and Obama wants to close this down. So, what the Prez said.

Reduce Spending on Non-Essential and Questionable Research
$3.8 Million in Savings in the First Year
Summary: Science! Ha! Remember that volcano study funding? Where did that get us? I'll tell you, we got angry volcanos. Luckily, the Europeans pissed off the Old Earth Gods more than we did, or we'd be the ones with ash in our faces.

Consolidate and Reduce Funding for Federal Advisory Committees
$34 million in Savings in the First Year
($170 Million Over Five Years)
Summary: There are too many damn commities. This is Big Government right here, friends! $43,000 for one committee, $41,000 for another, and pretty soon, you'll have a cool million! ONE MILLION DOLLARS! Oh, there's more? OK, $34 MILLION DOLLARS! PER YEAR! All we need is one MegaCommittee. But they'll be pretty busy, so we'll need some helpers, folks who really know stuff about earthquakes and dog management. Those helpers will meet every so often, and then tell the MegaCommittee what's up. Great stuff, this one.

Wait, you TEXT your votes in? What is this, American Idol? Ooh .. American Idol makes money off of texting, I see ... BRILLIANT! Let's set up more "text us your ideas" for the government! Instant profit! Balance the budget!
posted by filthy light thief at 1:45 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'll eat my hat if anything from YouCut actually gets through Congress.

This comment from the Federal Times link goes to show how the failure of the public education system produces the ignorant people that favor this nonsense:
I think they are all over paid and should take a 20% pay cut!!!!!!!!!!!
They are getting a lot more than the public sector and we have to pay their outrages salaries!!!!!!!!!.
posted by exogenous at 1:46 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

Please do not ignore the hard won lessons of history for the sake of a temporary political advantage.

Oh dude you had better sit down because I have news for you and I don't think you're going to take it very well.
posted by Shepherd at 1:47 PM on May 28, 2010 [5 favorites]

From a usability perspective, they got the site completely backwards. Here's what should happen:

1. You visit the site, and fill out a form that allowed you to select the government programs that you, personally, benefit from;
2. The site returns a list of all the government programs that you do not, personally, benefit from, from which you select the government programs that you think are sacrosanct, and/or that your friends and family benefit from;
3. The site returns a list of all the remaining government programs, with a big "CUT THIS!" button at the bottom.
posted by davejay at 1:52 PM on May 28, 2010 [6 favorites]

It is thoroughly revolting that Eric Cantor's out there turning thoughtful, responsible governance into mob rule by reality show-style text message voting. If it can't work to pick the best American Idol, what makes him think it's going to get us the best government?
posted by MegoSteve at 1:56 PM on May 28, 2010

I do find it weird that they're all "BOO DEMOCRATIC AGENDA! SMALLER GOVERNMENT! DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW! FREE MARKETS AND SELF RELIANCE!" But then when there actually is a huge oil accident that makes the oil industry and/or offshore drilling look economically and environmentally dangerous, they demand "WHY ISN'T OBAMA REACTING FASTER AND TAKING RESPONSIBILITY?

So, you find hypocrisy weird? Me too.
posted by davejay at 2:02 PM on May 28, 2010

Yeah, whoever knew that having a system where you pay to talk to senators

Which is itself a consequence of a system where candidates pay dearly to talk to voters.
posted by weston at 2:03 PM on May 28, 2010

Man, I'm really starting to fucking hate this country.
posted by !Jim at 2:05 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

Let's keep in mind that Cantor was all "they shot up my office!" but he forgot to hold a presser when the Richmond PD said it was a stay bullet.
posted by fixedgear at 2:14 PM on May 28, 2010 [4 favorites]

So they're happy to have cuts in "Questionable Non-Essential Research", but you can't suggest cutting the millitary?

Surely it wouldn't be unreasonable to at least have "Cut Questionable Non-Essential Millitary Spending" on the table? Compromise, folks, compromise.
posted by Jimbob at 2:18 PM on May 28, 2010

House Republicans outsource federal budget decisions to my friend in Spain.
posted by ericb at 2:25 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

Let's sew the back of America Speaking Out to the suggestion box for this site, and then sew the part where the winning idea comes out to Eric Cantor's face.
posted by mccarty.tim at 2:26 PM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]

a cut in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

I am so sick of the "Fuck-you, got-mine" mentality that leads to conversations about cuts like this, that I'm increasingly obsessed with the idea that there needs to be some way to find those that "got theirs" and take it away from them for a while.

Not forever, and not (entirely) punitively, but just so that they can see how quickly fortune can turn for the worst, and how important it is to have a support system in place at every level.

Unfortunately, most of my concepts for how to implement this almost immediately begin to tread into the area of felonious harassment, and I have to scale back.
posted by quin at 2:26 PM on May 28, 2010 [6 favorites]

EricB, this is just sad. I posted this just hoping maybe we could get some liberal bias on the votes, but it's like we're digging deeper and deeper into an artichoke with a turd at the center.
posted by mccarty.tim at 2:28 PM on May 28, 2010

YouCut.com currently goes to these nice people's business website. This strikes me as a tad half-baked. They could have gone with CutBook.com, which has a domain squatter, or YouCut.Gov is open if he could talk the Dems into giving him one measly domain.
posted by mccarty.tim at 2:33 PM on May 28, 2010

Eric Cantor Blames The Left For Attacks From The Right.
posted by ericb at 2:33 PM on May 28, 2010

"'First this is not American Idol or Dancing With the Stars,' [Rep. Alcee] Hastings [(D-Fla.)] said on the House floor. 'This is America’s legislature. For all we know, on YouCut, Osama bin Laden could be voting. Please know that no handful of organized gotcha Republicans are going to control this legislature.'"*

posted by ericb at 2:39 PM on May 28, 2010

The first comment from thehill.com:

They havn't listened to real Americans yet,why stop now.What they want to do is Squash freedom of speech.

It's been said many times, but it's clear when a Republican say "real Americans" they are actually saying "white people".
posted by cloeburner at 2:45 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

ericb: "House Republicans outsource federal budget decisions to my friend in Spain."

How are they not locking it down to IP addresses based in the US (nevermind the inherent flaws in that scheme)? I can see the next thing getting voted up being "Cut all funding for the INS" and "Eliminate budget for border patrols" as people outside the US get wind of this lunacy.
posted by mullingitover at 2:47 PM on May 28, 2010

Oh shoot, I didn't realize I had the link on "proposed" set to the second page of the comments. I wanted it to go here. Can a mod please do that for me?
posted by mccarty.tim at 2:57 PM on May 28, 2010

Not cutting Military Spending = a belief in American Exceptionalism.

Also, the American Dream is to have less poor people, and more successful rich people. If we stop helping the poor, they will die and we win!

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!
posted by blue_beetle at 2:57 PM on May 28, 2010

...reality show-style text message voting. If it can't work to pick the best American Idol, what makes him think it's going to get us the best government?

Seven Reasons Lee DeWyze Edged Out Frontrunner Crystal Bowersox for the ‘American Idol’ Crown.

Replace "tween girls" with "teabaggers."
posted by ericb at 2:59 PM on May 28, 2010

It's been said many times, but it's clear when a Republican say "real Americans" they are actually saying "white people".

No, they're actually saying "Republicans". Do you really think they consider Michael Moore a "real American" and Michael Steele not?
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 3:00 PM on May 28, 2010 [3 favorites]

Can we cut funding for congressman using .house.gov sites to advance their own political agendas?
posted by hal_c_on at 3:03 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

I thought Michael Steele was their token muppet? He's not a REAL American, as he's made of felt and held up by strings, but in many American's hearts, he is real to them.
posted by mccarty.tim at 3:04 PM on May 28, 2010

Let's split that down the middle and say "white Republicans." Have you seen how poorly Michael Steele's been treated by the far right in his own party?
posted by MegoSteve at 3:05 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

Cantor is a prick. And a smug prick, at that.

Anybody remember him sitting at the health care meeting with Obama? Sitting behind tremendous stacks of paper that he purported to be the "75-bazillion-page-Rape-of-America-Bill"? The prez called him on it (I think he called it Cantor's "prop show"), and Cantor looked just like the typical smacked-down bully smartass he is.

Cantor is all about the show. He certainly doesn't represent my Virginia.

Fuck him.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 3:10 PM on May 28, 2010 [6 favorites]

I can't believe how blatantly disingenuous the text is about "questionable research." Dude, no one really cares about drunk mice or using a computer to be some sort of comedy writer. Those projects are obviously working toward larger goals, like understanding of cognition, addiction, and behavior in humans or AI for spaceships and undersea exploration. Not spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get mice drunk, like it is phrased. Almost every single one of those "questionable" research projects has an obvious direction it's heading that will hopefully be beneficial for humans and society (particularly US humans), if you stop and think for two seconds.

The whole thing is appalling, and yet not surprising at all.
posted by wending my way at 3:28 PM on May 28, 2010 [3 favorites]

Almost every single one of those "questionable" research projects has an obvious direction it's heading ... if you stop and think for two seconds.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. If you're not at all educated in genetics or biology, you might not have the mental linkage to understand the place organisms like mice and fruit flies have in research. But furthermore, to even get as far as asking the question "What could this be this research be used for?", you have to believe it's possible that it's useful. A large number of people in this country have had their thought process channelled away from this possibility and into the idea that the phrase "wasteful government spending" is simply redundant -- all government spending is wasteful, particularly on programs you don't like and/or when it's funded by taxes you'll pay. And the groove is deep enough for many of them that escaping the channel takes attention and inquiry beyond most people's everyday habit if not their ability.

If you want almost everyone to realize a much of what we spend might not be wasted, you really have your work cut out for you.
posted by weston at 4:10 PM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]

Eric Cantor is my representative (or rather, he represents the district I call home back in the U.S.).

Mr. Cantor, I would be absolutely delighted to make some cuts in federal spending.

I'll start with you, this November 2.
posted by armage at 4:21 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

In fact, referendum could be an extremely effective way to establish a budget, assuming you repeat them year after year so people see the consequences. For now, I'd say democrats should try the same stunt given they're currently in the majority, surely there must be more military contracts going to Virginia, Alabama, Texas, etc. that more that democratic states would cut. :)
posted by jeffburdges at 4:44 PM on May 28, 2010

YouCut sounds like a place to upload videos of DIY circumcisions.
posted by box at 5:28 PM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]

I could imagine the Democrats doing it to gain popular support for some of their ideas, but it'd be pretty awful if it was a formal referendum based on the most popular suggestion, since mob rule isn't too sustainable. It should be a list of things the party wants to add or get rid of. IE "We like this, this and this, but we're willing to settle for just one idea based on a controlled poll."

It'd give people a sense of control, but not so much control that the government is going all wacky.
posted by mccarty.tim at 5:31 PM on May 28, 2010

"In fact, referendum could be an extremely effective way to establish a budget"

Haha, wow. Yeah. You are a true optimist.


"This is CNN Reporting. Thanks to an unprecedented advertising campaign leading up to today's federal budget vote by the public, Coca-Cola has been given its own branch of government. Exxon, also advertising heavily, been granted funding to drill without federal oversight anywhere in the United States and its territories. News Corp's ad campaign paid off as well, successfully passing a negative income tax for the corporation amounting to over 500 billion dollars in subsidies."
posted by mullingitover at 7:10 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

I agree that California's budget referendum are disastrous, but Colorado handles them fine, fyi. So we'd expect that your standard budget referendum work well in more homogeneous cultures, which makes perfect sense. Alright, but what goes wrong in California? Easy, votes happen only once but the consequences accumulate.

You could make a budgetary referendum that worked almost anywhere provided the referendums occur yearly each determining the next years budget. For example :

You might produce a stratified federal system where the central government had very little power aside from taxation. Almost all additional powers are held by directorates that each have their own separate charter/constitution, which the central government's parliament/senate has the power to create. Voters would propose a budgetary allocation among the directorates and vote for representatives for the directorates.

All directorates may legislate within their charter with minimal interference form the main parliament/senate. After election, the votes of directorate representatives are counted according to two distinct weightings : the popular sense is simply how many people voted for him, the financial sense is how much budget his voters sent. For example : If you're the hippy guy selected for the Defense Directorate, you've got real power over issues like gays in the military, but very little power over procurement. If you're the fundie selected for the Education Directorate, you'll again lack power over procurement. etc.

In this system, you'd never see California style wacky budget referenda. Instead, you'd see representatives campaigning on those same proposals, but the implementation would rest with a full elected body. And obviously, if a directorate annoyed enough people, you'd see PACs campaigning against them, directly decreasing their funding.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:22 PM on May 28, 2010

I agree that California's budget referendum are disastrous, but Colorado handles them fine, fyi.

If by "fine" you mean "cutting basic services"...you are correct.
posted by hal_c_on at 7:58 PM on May 28, 2010 [7 favorites]

weston: "Almost every single one of those "questionable" research projects has an obvious direction it's heading ... if you stop and think for two seconds.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. If you're not at all educated in genetics or biology, you might not have the mental linkage to understand the place organisms like mice and fruit flies have in research. "

I know people who do both mouse and fruit fly research. This stuff is very much about the basic mechanics of biology. They lead down the road to genetically targeted pharmaceuticals and such. But yes 'Joe the plumber' who dropped out of HS, probably doesn't have enough background to see the deeper value of general understanding.
posted by MrLint at 9:11 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

In fact, referendum could be an extremely effective way to establish a budget, assuming you repeat them year after year so people see the consequences.

It would be a disaster. Government budgeting is not all that easy when it comes to doing the whole thing. Voting on bond issues and that sort of thing is alright. But I hate to break it to you, but your average Joe is just not going to get it and will naturally vote for whatever benefits him the most, regardless of the consequences for anyone else or for a long timeline. I can't imagine most people have the faintest idea how to manage a government budget, not to mention doing a good job of it.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:09 AM on May 29, 2010

I count myself as one of the people who doesn't know how to write up a complete government budget. I'd be terrified if I had to vote on it, because I'd have to do a lot of work getting up to speed enough to make sense of it. "Oh, look, free pancakes on Sunday for everyone! Color coordinated highway stripes! Pogo sticks instead of jackhammers for road projects! I'm voting for that!"
posted by krinklyfig at 2:15 AM on May 29, 2010

If you read my comment, you'll notice there isn't any popular control over line items in the the budget referendum system proposed. Instead, voters only pick broad categories like military, health care, etc. and select representatives to handle the line items. The advantage is the various different 'directorates' are forced into direct competition with one another for prestige, mind share, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:28 AM on May 29, 2010

the only conclusion I can come to at the moment is that good representative government and a class of policy professionals who put serious time into deeply understanding complex issues is actually a considerably better plan than more direct democracy.

Great idea...how do we get that?
posted by toekneebullard at 8:42 AM on May 29, 2010

You achieve that by making representatives personal benefits correspond more with successful policy implementation, which usually means eliminating corruption. We've never been too incredibly successfully here, well consider ex-representatives being employed as lobbyists for example.

Aggressively and publicly invading representatives private business lives would almost surely help. For example, all your interactions are video taped but we'll only archive those involving people outside your spouse and children.

Ranked voting systems like STV, or even parliamentary system, improve the situation not be elimination corruption, but giving you more flavors of corruption to support. This works quite well for many countries, but some like Italy really run off the rails.

A more competitive mix of referenda and representation like I proposed about could help considerably. You might also hold validation referenda years after the law has gone into effect, well this might help kill Patriot act like bullshit. Some corporations have dramatically improved matters by vesting the executive's stock options only after they retire.

Ideology however has been our traditional method for controlling the behavior of representatives, officially speaking anyways. I donno if we're losing this to economics.. or if modern openness has improved matters.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:51 PM on May 29, 2010

"How are they not locking it down to IP addresses based in the US (nevermind the inherent flaws in that scheme)? I can see the next thing getting voted up being "Cut all funding for the INS" and "Eliminate budget for border patrols" as people outside the US get wind of this lunacy."

This isn't an election...it's a suggestion box. And the problem isn't that it exists, but that we lack a non-partisan means of holding our politicians accountable to their constituents outside of election day.

The problem with YouCut is that the results are skewed in such a way as to support a single political party. But, if we acknowledge that politicians are generally corrupt and ignorant to the interests of their constituents, a public forum for proposing budgetary changes outside of the ballot box seems to be a pretty decent way of asserting the power of the citizenry.

Obviously, mob rule and direct democracy would fail quickly in an uneducated populace -- but there's no good reason to abdicate all decision-making to our representatives.
posted by nayrb5 at 5:12 PM on May 29, 2010

Is there a way we can flood his Twitter account with sensible suggestions?
posted by rubah at 1:13 AM on June 1, 2010

Lost again! Damn it feels good to be in the party of tyrants keeping little Eric Cantor down.
posted by mccarty.tim at 3:49 AM on June 1, 2010