The actual, functional process that USED to be followed for many years is as follows. Assume for definiteness that we are planning for the FY2011 budget which covers the period from Oct 1, 2010 through Sept 30, 2011.

By Law, the president must prepare and submit his proposed budget by integrating and prioritizing inputs from all the cabinet agencies. He starts this in Sept-Dec of 2009, and sends it to Congress in Jan 2010.

Congress receives the President's budget proposal, then holds lots of hearings to review, adjust and agree on an overall budget. They pass the resulting budget resolution, sometime in late spring or summer of 2010. This establishes the levels of money that agencies can plan for. They are now 1/3 of the way done. No money can be spent yet.

For discretionary programs (not entitlements) Congress then passes legislation authorizing expenditures for various programs up to the agreed budget limits, providing the legal basis for the Government to spend the Public treasure. They must then pass appropriations bills (usually about 20, separated out by Agency, such as DoD, Interior, etc.). The appropriation (which can be less than the authorization amount) actually gives the money to the Agency to spend. This is supposed to happen in Aug or Sept of 2010, so that the funds have been budgeted, authorized, and appropriated in advance of the start of the 2011 FY on Oct 1, 2010.

I left out the parts about reconciliation between House and Senate versions, Presidential vetoes, and other gotchas, but the process is specified by Public Law passed in 1921, and has been mostly followed for most of our modern history. The continuing resolution is supposed to be an emergency measure only used for short periods when some emergency delays the completion of the process by the Oct 1 start date of a FY.

The current mess we are suffering through now regarding FY 2011 spending is the result of the complete abdication by the Democrats in control at the time, of the fundamental requirements of our federal government expenditure system. This began in early 2010 and continued throughout the campaign season, out of Democratic fear of public scrutiny of their spending plans in advance of the Nov 2010 elections. Shameful.

You are absolutely correct. I would love to see the proponents of solar and wind "solutions" provide a quantitative model showing how they would be able to provide a large fraction of total US electrical capacity -- say 50% or even 25%, and what it would cost, including transmission infrastructure.

Worse yet, the NIMBYs block almost every project to erect even simple power distribution trunk lines.

In the real world, it is necessary to choose among the feasible solutions that offer the best benefit-cost prospects. None is without risks, including all the fossil, nuclear, and "green" technologies. It is completely irresponsible to simply say "we shouldn't do nuclear, because it's dangerous". The real problem for nuclear is that only a tiny fraction of the populace understands the physics of nuclear power, and even fewer understand the engineering that controls it, but everybody reacts to the hysteria and fear that is propagated by the media.

Liquid hydrogen has a very high energy density - makes for light weight and long endurance in an aircraft. That's also why it's a great rocket fuel.

Except for all those green plants that prodigiously convert it into carbon compounds and return oxygen back to the air....

I agree. When you view the video, you see that there is no characteristic rocket exhaust plume, which would be extremely bright. There appears to be sunlight reflecting directly from the underside of the object, but not the extended roman candle effect you see from rocket motors. Nor is it accelerating rapidly as it would if it were a solid fueled missile -- the velocity is pretty slow and constant. Just because the helicopter reporter called it a missile doesn't make it one.

You are right on the money. Despite the noble intentions, this expensive experiment will not turn out well.

Me too. Discovered it during a grad course in numerical analysis. With the CRC Handbook in one hand and the HBMF in the other, you had a great deal of summarized practical math at your disposal. Throw in Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN (later released in C) -- icing on the cake.

If we could reject them, we would. Our philosophy is for all people to choose their own poison. You're forcing it down everyone's throat. ONCE AGAIN, states' rights. If California or Iowa or [state] wants to enact this legislation, alright. But don't force it on 300m people! Our nation is too large for the high government to be representative of the people. Such sweeping, life changing, nation-bankrupting legislation is best reserved for the better-representing states, where only a portion of the country will be affected.

I only want to shrink the FEDERAL government, and I apologize if I didn't make that clear.

There's no reason that 'modern government' has to be neatly organized in one massive engine, unless you're wanting to make a lobbyist's day shorter.

That being said, the Constitution is very much the perfect thing for a limited Federal government. The States are encouraged to both write their own laws AND solve their own problems.

As you may know, it is monumentally easier to change the State law than it is the Federal.

You're already modded down, but at the risk you're looking for a discussion, let me see if I can relate how I understand it, personally:

"Liberty" relates to "budget" under the terms of "small government". We can have fewer programs, at least at the Federal level, and that would in itself be good, but it would also cost less. That's not at all incoherent, even if it wasn't explained in detail. Less liberty will basically always mean more spending, because someone has to fund the enforcers, the tracking system, etc. There's just no way to implement a program like that for zero cost. A libertarian sees fewer programs as a win-win in this way.

"Budget" relates to "taxes" because the government should not have any other income. Taxes are one entire side of the balance sheet that makes up the budget. Ergo, a smaller and/or balanced budget would lead to fewer taxes demanded in the future.

Again, more wars means more tax needs. This point should, and I underscore should, be completely obvious to anyone, whether you agree with it or not.

There does exist a framework for running our government. Most of it us under glass at the National Archives Rotunda in DC, I think. Otherwise, I'm sure you can locate a copy online with relative ease.

Budget neutral is not filler. That's crucial, because the taxes are, again, the only income for this business entity that will be managing a large portion of the economy. Responsibility is paramount, because our children deserve better than 'pay for it somehow tomorrow'. At least they do if we do not wish the USA to follow in Rome's footsteps.

Abortion is not filler because these are public dollars being spent. If the constituency is not in favor of this type of expenditure, then it shouldn't probably occur. Unless there's some kind of opt-out provision that I'm unaware of...

The latter of your point is a fine position to take. My only rebuttal there would be that once/if the system is no longer broken, we will see no opportunity to remove this program. It is not a 'fix', it is a retrofit. If we're unhappy with it, due to the entitlement angle, we'll simply suffer under it forever - as we will with Medicare.

Or is it that Joe Public wants the cheap products and services that only cheap labor can provide, and won't let the problem be solved? It's just the free market in action.

Many Toyotas are built in America with American workers. And these days, a lot of "American" cars are built in Canada and Mexico. Look before you buy!

Or, to play the Devil's advocate, it is "Keynesian" economics that stimulates the economy. [Note, I'm not a fan of most subsidies, especially not in an established market like coal power; I was simply arguing the point that so many in the government now try to make].