More budgetary discretion from the ‘fiscal conservatives’:
Hungry for more road and transit dollars for their states, members of the Senate defied the White House on Wednesday and added billions of dollars to a highway measure, overwhelmingly rejecting the administration effort to keep spending within the limits of the newly passed budget.
Authors of the $295 billion measure said the 76-to-22 vote to add more than $11 billion to President Bush’s plan was justifiable in light of the sorry state of the transportation system.
Indeed, the willingness of 33 Republicans to join with Democrats and directly challenge the White House while exceeding budget limits at their first opportunity illustrates the premium that lawmakers continue to place on money for bridges and buses.
It simply amazes me that on vote after vote after vote, the Republican party is choosing to spend more rather than less. And these same fools will then have the audacity to push for permanent tax cuts and greater increases in tax cuts. Where do they think the money comes from? Why can they not control themselves? And for the apologists on my blogroll, why did we vote for these guys?
Gatchaman
Sadly, I see this sort of thing from both ends of the political spectrum. It seems all is OK if your side does it, but absolute evil if done by the other side.
I read a great blog a while back, though don’t remember which — I read far too many. But the point was the far left and far right are making it quite possible that a third-party, centrist candidate could walk away with the 08 election. I certainly hope so.
BumperStickerist
John,
Drive the Pennsylvania Turnpike sometime – you could spend $11B fixing the thing and STILL have potholes the size of swimming pools after the first winter.
So, spending some coin on infrastructure seems like a good idea …
and, it must be said, many of the conditions which afflict our national infrastructure that are covered by the $11 Billion, the weathering, erosion, wear-and-tear got their start under the Clinton administration.
~ pause ~
There. I said it ….
it’s Clinton’s fault.
I feel *MUCH* better now.
Christie S.
“Why can they not control themselves? And for the apologists on my blogroll, why did we vote for these guys?”
Umm..because they lied to you?
Take heart though; you are not alone. I believe all politicians are sent thru a crash-course in political doublespeak; regardless of party affiliation.
camber
They cannot control themselves because they have the power….they will spend as they please.
When the Democrats get power….watch all the “fiscal conservatives” come out of the woodwork and appear out of nowhere.
Happens everytime.
SilverRook2000
When I used to be in government as a staffer 3 decades ago, I always felt there were two kinds of voters, Taxpayers and Citizens. Citizens were all for services, better roads, better parks, and better schools, etc. Taxpayers wanted fiscal restraint, tight budgets and low taxes. The only problem was they resided in the body of the same person. Since the first priority of all legislators is to get re-elected, it doesn’t take them too long to figure out that unless they make that “citizen” happy at least locally, they won’t be re-elected, it doesn’t take them long to fall in love with “pork”. Politics is never about liberals or conservatives..it is all about money. Everything else is secondary.
TJIT
The republican spending behavior is absolutely despicable. I am disgusted with the “conservatives” who support anyone with an R behind there name.
Evryone should recognize this spending is a symptom of the utter corruption of the current system. The problem is the incumbents have rigged the system. They have used campaign finance regulation and clever juggling of district lines to make it very difficult for anyone to run against them.
Clear illustration of someones saying “politics is like stew if you don’t stir it up every once in a while the scum rises to the top”
John Cole
clever juggling of district lines to make it very difficult for anyone to run against them.
Not applicable to the Senate, but a point well taken. In the Senate, it is particularly difficult to unseat a sitting Senator because of CFR, the power of incumbency, and because of the systemic advantage of a Senate term. Six years is a long time in politics, and egregious behavior in the first four years of a term can be forgotten through a vigorous election year rehabiliation.
Only Senators with Alfonsian approval ratings get unseated in re-elections and when there are seismic shifts in the political landscape. And by Alfonsian, I am referring to Alfonse D’Amato’s almost negative approval ratings.
Birkel
Can a brother get a veto?
Rick
Been a while since I agreed with host Mr. Cole, but there you are.
SilverRock sums it up best, short of numerous George Will columns down the years.
Some of the drive to sustain spending is almost self-perpetuating: if we can waste dollars on NPR and NEH and NEA and CPB, well, surely we must spend the billions needed for the Rob’t Byrd Bypass Highway around Dogpatch, WV.
And when one suggests eliminating funding for the artsy agencies (along with corporate welfare, ethanol subsidies, AMTRAK and on), it sets up a uproar.
As has been pointed out: federal “benefits” are felt as concentrated on noisy constituencies, will costs are diffused.
Cordially…
bogeyman
As usual, it’ll be up to the Democrats to act like adults and raise taxes to dig us out of the hole the Republicans dug. Funny how Bush has yet to veto ANYTHING, and his followers blindly believe he shares no blame in this.
Rick
bogeyman,
Unwelcome as this may be to you, your point actually is one embraced by quite a number of Republicans.
For all the GOP years in the Congressional wilderness, they tended to be what someone (Bob Dole, maybe) said was tax collector for the welfare state.
Consumed with balancing the budget, they’d have to go along with the majority Dems big spending schemes by also going along with greater collections. And never could catch up.
So there’s an element of “Screw it/starve the beast” in this.
I’m not doing cartwheels about this, because I’d much rather see some real cuts/eliminations (see my post above), which, RADICALLY, have never really been tried.
Y’know, like “real communism.”
Cordially…
Randolph Fritz
“It simply amazes me that on vote after vote after vote, the Republican party is choosing to spend more rather than less.”
Why are you amazed? Republicans have been doing this since Reagan. See Stockman, The Triumph of Politics, passim.
Libertine
Ahhh…conservatives are conservative when it doesn’t involve their state or district. Other then that they are just politicians looking to keep the home folk happy so they can keep their jobs.
TJIT
Bogeyman,
Budgets are a two way equation money spent versus money in. So budgets can be balanced by cutting spending.
What do you think, is there any chance the democrat party might act like adults by eliminating some corporate welfare or cutting other spending?
Or does acting like an adult always mean spending more of the taxpayers money? Even if the taxpayer money is use to pay for things like corporate welfare?
Kimmitt
Consumed with balancing the budget, they’d have to go along with the majority Dems big spending schemes by also going along with greater collections. And never could catch up.
Revenues as a percentage of GDP:
1970 19.0
1971 17.3
1972 17.6
1973 17.6
1974 18.3
1975 17.9
1976 17.1
1977 18.0
1978 18.0
1979 18.5
1980 19.0
1981 19.6
1982 19.2
1983 17.4
1984 17.3
1985 17.7
1986 17.5
1987 18.4
1988 18.1
1989 18.4
1990 18.0
1991 17.8
1992 17.5
1993 17.5
1994 18.1
1995 18.5
1996 18.9
1997 19.3
1998 20.0
1999 20.0
2000 20.9
2001 19.8
2002 17.8
2003 16.4
2004 16.3
Source: CBO.
This doesn’t seem particularly consistent with your story. Outside of the Bush 43 insanity of ’03-’04, Federal revenues are in a pretty narrow band of 17-20 percent of GDP. If you go to the same page, you’ll note that Federal expenditures are in a wider band — 17-23.5 percent of GDP — but also don’t follow any particular pattern once the Vietnam War is over. The only real breaks in the pattern are the extremely high spending in ’82-83 and the extremely low collections in ’03-04.
Saam Barrager
My brother and I each have BAs in economics. In 2000 I asked him why he voted for Bush.
“Because Republicans are better for the economy.” He said.
In 2004 I mentioned the economy and asked him why he voted for Bush again, he said:
“I vote on social issues.”
Jim Durbin
If the Democrats weren’t so captive to the insane left wing of the party, conservatives and independent voters would abandon this reckless big-spending Republican majority.
The truth is Karl Rove knows that buget hawks don’t have votes, and the only alternative is the party of Kennedy/Pelosi/Clinton/Biden. They are the ones who want even more money for programs.
In the end, the socialist plan to create a coddled society split by race and dependent on the whims of the bureaucracy may have been too successful.
Add to that the demographics of Medicare and Social Security, and a few billion for Transportation matters even less. By 2015, 50% of government spending will be for people over the age of 65.
It’s time to start storing up your money now. Big taxes are coming – no matter who is in charge.
Anderson
You don’t accumulate power by not spending. Power is what it’s about, folks. Not ideology.
Randolph Fritz
“If the Democrats weren’t so captive to the insane left wing of the party”
Hunh? Why do you say that? If even the moderate left was in charge of the Democrats in 2004, the presidential nominee would have been Dean.
Libertine
I feel both parties should move away from their fringes. But the GOP has a bigger problem with the wingnuts right now.
And btw did anybody see the NYT this evening? Great article about Newt & Hillary being so friendly that they are finishing each other’s sentences? This might be a sign that the world is coming to an end!!! Newt & Hillary, go figure…HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :-P
Randolph Fritz
I am still amused by the idea of a major Trotskyite (or Stalinist or Maoist) faction in the Dems. Why, it’s almost as silly an idea as a christian right faction in the Reps.
Extremists? What extremists?
More seriously–get a grip, guys. Extreme left is Trotskyites or Stalinists or Maoists. It ain’t Al Gore.
Veeshir
I voted for them because the alternative was worse.
Kimmitt
It’s time to start storing up your money now. Big taxes are coming – no matter who is in charge.
Close. Big taxes are coming if we put Democrats in charge. An Argentina-style collapse is coming if we leave this current band of morons in.