The title of this Opinion Journal piece says it all:
The GOP’s Spending Spree: Aren’t Republicans supposed to be the party of small government?
I guess they got the same fiscal bill of goods I got. The only problem is that nothing in my experience, and in particular the rhetoric of the Democrats during the Drug Benefit debate, even gives me the slightest impression Democrats would be any better. Poor Ev Dirksen.
Ted Barlow
Fair enough. But wouldn’t divided government be better?
Kimmitt
I continue to fail to understand why Bush does not face a Primary challenger.
Moe Lane
Imagine our surprise.
Slartibartfast
You had me at “I continue to fail to understand”, Kimmitt. You had me, there.
Kidding aside, this is an issue that’s going to find traction on both sides of the center. It’s probably in the Left’s best interest to run with it, so of course it’ll get short shrift.
Moe Lane
“It’s probably in the Left’s best interest to run with it, so of course it’ll get short shrift.”
OK, I’ve started Stage III of the Patch today, so I know why /I’m/ being snarky. What’s doing it for -you-? :)
Moe
PS: Not that I’m necessarily disagreeing with you, mind.
Slartibartfast
Not being snarky, Moe. Just realistic, paying careful attention to Galt’s Law.
M. Scott Eiland
“I continue to fail to understand”
Translate that into Latin and put it on a coat of arms, and you’re all set, Kimmitt. It suits you.
James W
“The only problem is that nothing in my experience, and in particular the rhetoric of the Democrats during the Drug Benefit debate, even gives me the slightest impression Democrats would be any better.”
Instead of rehtoric, let’s look at recent history. From yesterday’s WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8734-2003Nov23.html
“…But a rising tide of GOP spending on home-district projects is making those Democrats of yesteryear look like mere pikers of pork, according to a 15-page study just released by the minority staff of the House Appropriations Committee.
The study finds that the number of home-state projects earmarked in various bills has skyrocketed under the GOP, despite the party’s rhetorical commitment to reining in a profligate federal government.
Moreover, it contends, Republicans “have opened up broad new areas of government to the practice of earmarking that were previously not subject to earmarks.”
The whole article and Minority report (http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/PorkReport.pdf) are worth a look. Do both parties load legislation with pork-barrel spending? Absolutely. But the record of the last 10 years clearly indicates that, rhetoric again notwithstanding, Republicans seize the opportunity to do it much more aggressively.
“But wait,” you ask, “Doesn’t that mean the rhetoric of Republicans on spending and deficits and ‘smaller government’ applies only when they can use it as a political cudgel?” Why, yes.
No shit.
Moe Lane
“”But wait,” you ask, “Doesn’t that mean the rhetoric of Republicans on spending and deficits and ‘smaller government’ applies only when they can use it as a political cudgel?” Why, yes.”
…and that, class, is why the Founding Fathers did not give any Constitutional protection to political parties, intended that the House of Representatives should have a high turnover rate and gave control of the Senate over to the State legislatures.
But then some very foolish people changed the Constitution and took away the States’ ability to put a check on the House’s funding, which meant that the national legislature became more powerful than the state legislatures, which meant that the latter became much less relevant, which left a vaccuum that the national political parties expanded to fill, which made gerrymandering attractive enough to make it widespread, so they did, and then everything turned to shit.*
Moe
*Or something like that.
Steve Malynn
Moe, that was a better poly-sci 101 than I’ve seen anywhere. Kudos.
Kimmitt
Due respect, but I’d prefer to avoid another Depression, if it’s all right.
Dean
So, Kimmitt, it’s alright for Bush to set new deficits? I seem to recall a few Dems condemning him on that, but I’m sure you disagree w/ them, nu?
Emperor Misha I
Well, I can’t say that I fail to understand why, because it’s pretty obvious that it would be futile for anybody to challenge Shrubya in the primaries.
But, given his track record of being soft on terrorism, not giving a shit about shredded civilians as long as they’re only Joos and outspending the Donks like Santa on crystal meth with a pipeline to the Federal Reserve, I sure as Hell consider it a great pity.
It would do my soul good to have an actual REPUBLICAN to vote for next year, somebody that I wouldn’t have to hold my nose and puke while I voted for. Sadly, that’s not going to happen, so I guess I’ll just be bringing a barf bag to the polling station.
Bastard RINO S.O.B.
Kimmitt
This is the sort of sentiment to which I was referring, yes. An equivalent to Bush I’s Buchanan.