The truth hurts:
THREE TIMES in the past quarter-century, conservative leaders have promised to restrain wasteful government spending. President Ronald Reagan tried it and showed he was at least half-serious by vetoing the pork-laden 1987 transportation bill. House Speaker Newt Gingrich tried it and risked his party’s electoral standing by battling to restrain the growth in programs such as Medicare. And President Bush has tried it, declaring on numerous occasions that he expected spending restraint from Congress. None of these efforts proved politically sustainable. As The Post’s Jonathan Weisman and Jim VandeHei reported Thursday, Mr. Bush’s attempt at spending discipline has been especially limp…
The nation is at war. It faces large expenses for homeland security. It is about to go through a demographic transition that will strain important entitlement programs. How can this president — an allegedly conservative president — believe that the federal government should spend money on the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center in Louisiana? Or on the Henry Ford Museum in Michigan? The bill Mr. Bush has signed devotes more than $24 billion to such earmarked projects, continuing a trend in which the use of earmarks has spread steadily each year. Remember, Republicans control the Senate and the House as well as the White House. So somebody remind us: Which is the party of big government?
And please spare me the attempts to justify this, I am not buying. And the light seems to have gone on (albeit, a couple weeks late to stop the latest spending orgy) even at Town Hall:
President Reagan often said it’s hard to recall that you came to drain the swamp when you’re up to your armpits in alligators. Republicans like Rep. Don Young of Alaska would rather use your tax dollars to build a scenic bridge to the swamp.
Hard as it is to believe, Young is more in tune with the GOP that rules Congress today than the former president who restored the party to national power in 1980 when he won the White House and a Republican Senate.
Their differences are nowhere more evident than on limiting government and reducing federal spending. Reagan said in his first inaugural speech that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Today, Young crows about the $286.4 billion transportation bill to The New York Times, saying he “stuffed it like a turkey.”
No excuse, so no excuses, please.
Defense Guy
This is not an excuse, but it is a call for realistic expectations. What you, and probably many of us, would like to see is a president that says ‘hell no, I ain’t signing this pork o rama’. So, on top of everything else going on right now, we want this president to start a war against pork.
Just isn’t going to happen. Although it would be great if it did, but considering the sh*tstorm that came out of attempts to tinker with/fix social security…
John Cole
No, Defense Guy. The real problem is the spenders in Congress who write and pass these bills.
TarHeelCP
You can call it Republican stupidity if you like, but it’s voter stupidity that’s the problem. As voters, we don’t hold our elected officials accountable for crap like this.
I’ll admit, it’s hard to get upset if you’re one of Young’s constituents; they’ll be getting far more back in terms of tax dollars than they gave, at least in this go ’round. But it’ll will end up costing us all in the end. Unfortunately, our budget process is set up so that it is just too tempting to pass up getting your hand in the till!
Defense Guy
JC
I concur. I wish, at times, we had a mechanism for throwing then ALL out. I am unsure how we would go about removing the feeding trough aspects of our Congress.
Aakash
Mr. Cole, this is an excellent entry. I also see that you’ve re-designed your website. I liked the old look better… but then again, that’s just how I am.
docG
Just trying to connect this post with the previous one on corruption. I’m no expert, but it would appear that the entire federal legislative system is totally corrupted by large money interests on both the left and the right. No one can get elected without massive amounts of money to spend on media buys. Here comes the 1st Amendment references, but for the love of God, lets limit the length of campaigning allowed for federal offices and the amount of money that can be spend by candidates and any other entities. No one can spend all their time in a cesspool and not stink at the end of the day.
TarHeelCP
The voters have to demand it!! They have to be willing to vote out their own pork-bellied reps. It’s the only way. Currently, we reward many of our congresmen for “bringing home the bacon,” so to speak.
metalgrid
So, on top of overthing else going on right now, we want this president to start a war against pork.
Yeah, what’s the problem? He can’t multitask? He’s not starting a war, it’ll just be him exercising his veto power like Reagan did for far fewer budgetary transgressions.
Marcus Wellby
We do hold them accountable — be reelecting them! Pork, when looked at on a federal level is bad. But, on a state level, it is good – it is what wins elections. Do you think the good people of Alaska are pissed about a multi-million dollar “scenic bridge to the swamp”? Do you think the people who are going to get jobs working on that bridge are going to pissed?
I am not defending pork, but how can we expect change when it is that pork that keeps sending people back to Washington. The attitude is pork is only pork when its meant for another state — when its for our state, well thats just good governance.
Defense Guy
From my understanding the bill went through easily because the votes on CAFTA were given, or traded for. The you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours nature of modern American politics.
Steve
Why should people be upset at pork? It doesn’t cost us anything. Through the miracle of deficit spending, an extra $5 million project can be thrown into the budget, free of charge. The bill gets passed on to our kids, grandkids and great grandkids, most of whom aren’t born yet and thus don’t get a vote.
Fiscal responsibility should be one concept both sides can agree on. If we’re going to have a big government, or a small government, either way we should pay for what we’re doing, rather than put it on a credit card for our kids to inherit. We’ve seen that the “starve the beast” philosophy doesn’t work – taxes get cut over and over, but the spending just grows. I don’t believe in higher taxes because I like paying more money, I believe in higher taxes because I believe in balancing my checkbook instead of running up credit card debt. And maybe, if people started to feel a pinch from all this pork, there would be more of a movement to do away with it.
Imagine if we had a balanced budget amendment along these lines: the budget gets approved first, and then the tax rates for the year are determined according to how much money the budget requires. All of a sudden, that $5 billion in pork directly affects your bottom line as a taxpayer, and you have to decide whether you really want to pay for that new taxpayer-funded study. It might even motivate you to write your Congressman a time or two.
For the record, though, the Henry Ford Museum is pretty cool.
Aaron
Gridlock.
I think I like it more and more.
The only way the GOP will pass smaller budget is if Hillary proposes it.
capelza
Pork is huge in Alaska, which is ironic to me as their are only about a half a million people there, and they have the permanant fund and it’s annual dividend. And no state income tax either. It always amuses me when an Alaskan (of which I am one half the time as I work up there) talks about the spirit of self-reliance in the state…snicker.
I can see economic development up there when it is really needed, there is little infrastructure in some places, but for cripes sake, AK is a rich state, pay for it themselves if they want to be so independent. BTW, it isn’t that hard to live up there, unless you are in one of the very isolated villages (where I spend my time). Most people live in and around Anchorage. It’s just another city.
Bush could damn well veto this stuff. How long does it take to sign on the dotted line? Just a little more than not signing it at all and saying, “This is unacceptable”.
Aaron
Wait, first let me get a cushy government job, THEN go back to gridlock.
TarHeelCP
I like that idea! And for the record, I admitted that we reward our congressman for the pork they bring us.
Mr Furious
JC, did you find this one via Ezra, too? He’s got a thread on this as well.
Here’s what I said over there:
Further down in the Op-Ed:
Just to be fair, [I live in Michigan] this earmark almost certainly came from a Democrat. Both of Michigan’s Senators are Dems, and the Museum is likely in John Dingell’s district. The Henry Ford is a nice museum and is doing fine with whatever their financial sources are, they don’t need money from a strapped federal government.
That said, Bush is a fucking pussy. He never actually has to walk his talk. Some “leader.”
I had a Republican friend last election that wouldn’t vote for Kerry (or Bush—he obstained on that part of the ballot), but voted for “gridlock” to put a brake on this shit. He voted Dem fot senator and US Rep.
RSA
You mean they’re not all rugged individualists?
Might as well start assigning blame. From Jonathan Chait, in TNR:
Mr Furious
RSA-
You a link for that Chait piece? I want to read more/use it.
KC
This just goes to John’s other post on Congressional accountability. If Congress was required to hold 1) at least three open committee hearings on all major bills not related to foreign intelligence and presidential appointments; 2) include all bill amendments passed by majorities in the final version of bills (that is, disallow committee chairmen to secretly knock off amendments they don’t like but that are supported by Congressional majorities); and 3) hold votes in the open within a set time frame, say from 8-5:00 five days a week, when people are awake and paying attention; and 4) follow the stipulations of the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act with respect to committee records, I think we’d have a better and more accountable Congress. The fact is, Congress has exempted itself from many of the disclosure laws it has applied to the Executive Branch. It’s time to change that dynamic.
In California, in the 1970s, the Legislature resisted many of these changes, but they were finally forced to implement them in 1975 with the Legislative Open Records Act. The opposition, Democrat and Republican, said that these changes would effectively neuter the legislature. They were wrong. Things still aren’t perfect here in California, but unlike in 1974, we don’t have legislature secretly allotting itself fifty-million worth of traveling expenses and pension payments on the taxpayer tab.
Davebo
Capelza
Speaking of Pork of the Great White North…
ETCHIKAN, Alaska, April 8 — Even by the standards of Alaska, the land where schemes and dreams come for new life, two bridges approved under the national highway bill passed by the House last week are monuments to the imagination.
One, here in Ketchikan, would be among the biggest in the United States: a mile long, with a top clearance of 200 feet from the water — 80 feet higher than the Brooklyn Bridge and just 20 feet short of the Golden Gate Bridge. It would connect this economically depressed, rain-soaked town of 7,845 people to an island that has about 50 residents and the area’s airport, which offers six flights a day (a few more in summer). It could cost about $200 million.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/national/10ALAS.html?ex=1396929600&en=ca6c6fa2f7229ee4&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
In fairness, I’m flying to Ketchikan next month for a fishing trip. And it would be convenient to be able to drive from the airport to town.
But 200 million bucks??
RSA
. . .a link for that Chait piece?
The original is behind a firewall at TNR, but here’s what I think is the complete piece: http://skeptically.org/curpol/id8.html.
capelza
Hope you enjoy your trip. It would be convenient, but ferrys are available. I don’t know for sure how many actual miles of road are available in the Ketchikan area. I know Kodiak Island has less than 100 and it is a huge island.
The only thing I can say in defense of the Ketchikan bridge is that the cruise ship industry is really big in that area and a lot of the customers do or would fly into or out of Ketchikan. That could be a lot of people, and not just the 50 folks who live on the island. The reporting was a little phoingy on that one. Though, again, AK itself should spring for the brdige in my opinion.
Rome Again
Again, John, I totally agree, be they Republicans or Democrats. I’m glad we’ve found some consensus today.
Don Surber
The Highways Bill is the best piece of legislation out there. It adds not a dime to the federal debt. It is paid for mainly by some of the world’s lightest fuel taxes. The earmarks that professional anti-tax lobbyists whine about are mainly for deciding which roads go where. I would rather have my elected official decide this than some geek who has never been in Appalachia
At worse, critics say it is $24 billion in “pork” (and what a lame-ass cliche that has become) — over a six-year period.
That is $4 billion a year or less than 1 percent of the original projection of $425 billion in deficits this year.
What about the remaining 99 percent?
A bus shelter in Alaska? Good. I hope they heat the seats. Anyone who has ever waited for a bus on the corner of East Ninth and Lakeside in Cleveland in the winter appreciates the need for protection from the weather
You want to talk about waste? How about taking on Medicare, which covers the health bills for millionaires simply because they are 65 or older.
Whopper Floppers at Burger King have to pay a tax (indirect and direct) of 2.9 percent so that some Winnebago-driving, Florida-vacationing, fast-lane-hogging grandpa doesn’t have to pay for his Viagra
Minimum wage earners may not have to pay federal income taxes, but they sure as heck have to fork over 15 cents an hour to buy Hoverrounds for rich retirees
I’d like to see Citizens Against Government Waste take that on. But then the grandpas who write the checks to keep CAGW in business would quit.
So rail against the highways bills, you sock-sniffing lemmings
Richard Aubrey
The problem is that the congresscritters have discovered they can buy the chumps’ votes WITH THE CHUMPS’ OWN MONEY and the chumps haven’t figured it out, and aren’t likely to, any time soon.
The solution is to tell every elected official that the first time he says something about bringing money (“jobs”) to your district or state, you’re going to vote against him. That ought to catch on in a couple of thousand years.
Jim Caputo
How about we just call it what it is…a lie. When Repugnantcans talk about fiscal conservatism, they’re talking out their ass. And its not the only subject they lie about. I’m sure we all remember the famous Contract with America that helped push the Repugs into control in the House back in the mid-90s. Has anyone gone and looked at it lately? How many of the promises they made in that contract have they kept?
Here…do the math
1 – require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress
2 – select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse
3 – cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third
4 – limit the terms of all committee chairs
5 – ban the casting of proxy votes in committee
6 – require committee meetings to be open to the public
7 – require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase
8 – and implement a zero base-line budgeting process for the annual Federal Budget
Now I haven’t followed all the things on the list, but I’m not sure that they’ve done any of them to date. #5 may have been done, but I’m not sure.
DougJ
John, 9/11 changed everything. It’s that simple. There’s a time for tightening the belt, for cutting spending to the bone, but the years after the most deadly attack on the US in history is not that time.
Clinton ran up huge deficits during a time of peace and prosperity. THAT was tax-and-spend librulism.
Jim Caputo
9-11 9-11 9-11 everything that is going wrong is because of 9-11 9-11 9-11 ….the new repugnantcan mantra for avoiding responibility for the shit they heap upon us.
But here’s a little bit of FACTUAL information from the White Office of Management and Budget (as opposed to the Office of Pulling Made Up Facts Out of Your ASS). The national debt has been steadily rising in this country since WWII. It’s never gone down under any presidency. What has changed, however, is our national debt as a percentage of our GDP. And that’s really the more telling stat since it’s comparing apples to apples rather than trying to compare 1950s dollars to 1970s dollars to 1990s dollars.
From 1940 until 1984, that figure was dropping radidly. It was when Reagan took over that it reversed, and the reversal was monumental. From 1980 through 1992 (Reagan and Bush), the percentage went from about 35% all the way to 65%.
Now I know you’re going to blame it all on the Democratic Congress, but there was a Democratic Congress for most of the Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations too. So it couldn’t just be the democrats spending money.
The trend would reverse itself when Clinton took office. During the Clinton administration, the percentage would drop from about 65% to 55%.
Now we have 4+ years of the Dim Son and what do you think is happening again? We’ve gone from around 55% up to about 70% (go ahead, start screaming “9-11 9-11 9-11”).
So don’t go blaming Clinton for the debt. The debt clearly belongs to Reagan and both Bushes.
You can check out the OMB numbers here
JoeTX
DougJ ,
That is Bullshit. I’m tired of the “9/11 changed everything” excuse. 9/11 has been hung around the necks of Americans for too long. The Republicans came into power on that “Contract with America” and they broke it. I’ve been a Republican for 25 years, and I’m truly ashamed what they’ve done to the party and their brand of christianity. Bad policies, no accountability, creative editing of scientific reports, you name it, and they’ve F*#@(! it up. I’m not a democrat and not defending Clinton, but I don’t believe he ended his presidency with a deficit…
Jim Caputo
Clinton ended his presidency with the country running in the black (there was still a deficit, the gov’t just wasn’t adding to it at that point).
If you’ll recall, in the 2000 debates there was all kinds of discussion about what to do with the record surpluses that were being projected because the country had finally gotten out of deficit spending.
Gore was proposing some modest tax cuts for the middle class and the poor but thought that paying down the debt should be a priority, while Bush was talking about huge tax cuts saying that alone would make the economy so wonderful that all our debts would be able to be paid down.
And you know how the rest of THAT story goes…
Raznoe
Don