And, Mr. Speaker, of course the lobbyists that come in, they would prefer that it be mandatory spending; so some of these programs, if they can write it in law that if they meet certain qualifications, they automatically get it and it does not go through the appropriation process, it is not subject to prioritizing. So we have ended up with more and more of our budget being spent in this mandatory spending, and really even though technically defense is discretionary, most of the defense budget becomes the kind of obligation, because that is what we are here for, defense and security, becomes almost untouchable.
Nick Smith: “And, Mr. Speaker, of course the lobbyists that come in, they would prefer that it be mandatory spending; so some of…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of mandatory spending on the federal budget.
Share
More from Nick Smith
If it says that the $20 million is going to be withheld unless and until there is full cooperation by the United Nations and participating countries releasing available information on the Oil-for-Food program?
How do we change? How do we develop the kind of discipline, intestinal fortitude to start slowing down this huge growth of government to the extent that we have decided we will simply borrow more and more money to take home to our…
I oppose H.R. 2828, the California Water Bill because it preauthorizes wasteful projects. It forces federal taxpayers to pick up more than a $1.5 billion tab for a California-only project. It would not prevent taxpayers from getting stuck…
H. Con. Res. 409 resolves that Congress recognizes with humble gratitude the more than 16 million veterans who served in the United States Armed Forces during World War II and the Americans who supported the war effort on the home front…





