A few weeks into DC and I already feel discouraged by this mess we call government. And actually, this has nothing to do with fish (which is what they pay me to feel discouraged about).

One of the projects we’re working on is thinking about appropriations and budget. It’s a constant cry in the world of agencies required to do something (in our case end overfishing) that they simply can’t do it because they don’t have enough information/money. The two are generally acknowledged to be equivalent; it takes a lot of money to get the level of detailed data and statistics that you need to manage something as complex as fisheries.

Sometimes this is just an agency trick to get out of doing what they don’t want to politically. And it tends to work, because we all identify with this. You don’t have enough money? I don’t have enough money either! That’s ok then…

Of course the caveat is, no one ever has enough money; the question is, do you have a reasonable amount to take a stab at what you are supposed to take a stab it.

In the case of fisheries right now, they actually really don’t. So we’re crunching some numbers, and following the budget process pretty closely, both asking for more money (haha yeah right) and trying to do some damage control regarding what gets cut.

That part has been interesting. What has made me angry/sad/ashamed to be an American has been watching the Republicans use the budget and the seemingly lofty goal of deficit reduction as a way to legislate ideologically in the back alley of a ridiculous amendment process.

I’m willing to concede to the Republicans that the deficit is a problem that needs to be addressed. That’s pretty much all I’m willing to concede, and I’d say the Democrats are pretty much there too. We’re spending more money than we have, and, as mom and dad taught me back in the day, that’s not a good idea. Of course mom and dad also taught me that if you REALLY REALLY want the full version of the CATS CD and you spend the day poking around kitchen drawers and couch cushions, $30 in change will materialize. I’m not sure how that lesson would translate to fiscal policy though, so we’ll stick with the don’t spend more than you have lesson. The point being, that I kind of get the panic, even if I don’t think it’s quite time to batten down the hatches yet.

So the new rule is no earmarks–specially reserved money for pet projects is out, regardless of the validity of the project. Ok, I can even come along with you there. But then there’s the amendment process, which has become an anti-earmark extravaganza. Instead of rationally considering what programs are really essential and which could maybe tighten their belts, the House of Representatives has come up with an astounding 500 or so amendments going after programs like the Environmental Protection Agency, Planned Parenthood, and Obama’s teleprompter.

The amendments have ranged from downright ridiculous (for example, the amendment that would have de-funded Obama’s use of a teleprompter) to the run of the mill in my world (such as an amendment prohibiting funding going towards catch share programs, a particularly controversial fisheries management tool) to the outrageous and seriously damaging, such as the ones that have me up in arms–removing all federal funding from Planned Parenthood, and gutting the EPA.

The good news is, the Republicans are dealing with their own level of internal chaos quite poorly, which I hope will alienate some of the swing voters. I mean, I always think they’re a bunch of dipshits. But yesterday they passed the CR with no Democratic votes (and 3 dissenting Republicans), in spite of the fact that it is very unlikely to make it through the Senate, or be signed into law by the President. There’s been a lot of blustering from the House leadership, but it’s very likely that they are blustering their way to a government shut down, hopefully reminding the rest of the voting public that it takes more than ideological hatred to actually get something done–even in DC.