Redstate

Will abandoning the Republicans (and thus letting the Democrats win) improve the situation?

Particularly when the Democrats seem to be in a race to see who can pander to the DailyKos/MoveOn/DU moonbats the most.  I'll repeat: The moonbats are running the Democratic Party.

I can live with the pork - it beats the heck out of the utter incompetence we'd get (at best) from a President and Congress that those moonbats would be running.  To let the Democrats get any foothold until sanity returns to that party's leadership is foolish in the extreme.

The most popular 2008 candidate among dKos users is Wes Clark, who's hardly the liberal extremist you seem to be expecting out of the democrats. The last democratic administration was hardly "utter incompetence" like you seem to suggest. The more responsible spending (and balanced budget) of the past 10 years didn't come with the republican in office, all other politics aside.

Even more, what exactly would you be worried from the democrats, with respect to economics? That they would spend too much money? I'm going to have to say the current Administration has set the bar rather low in that department.

The diary here isn't telling you to abandon your party, its telling you to demand that your party gets its act together. Personally, I think the democrats could also use such a cleanup of their ranks.

My 08 vote will go to whichever side can make more sense between now and then, but right now its the choice of the lesser of two evils, which is just sad. As Americans, we shouldn't have to settle for that choice.

" The more responsible spending (and balanced budget) of the past 10 years didn't come with the republican in office, all other politics aside."

It came from the Republican takeover in 1994 and an adamant Republican Congress checking Clinton's spending.  Remember that government shutdown... that was the Rs tighting for less spending against the Clinton WH.  Unfortunately, neither Congress nor the President are doing that now (similar to the pre-1980 era).

It was easy for an R Congress to say no to the other party's President on spending.  But now an R President can't say no to his own party's spending.  If a D Congress was passing this budget, the President would veto it.  It's sad that he won't now.

This identifies the real dilemma for conservatives. Richard is right that we need to press for fiscal conservatism and smaller government, but as you note, walking away from Republicans simply allows Democrats to get elected; we get bad government, weak defense, etc., and still get profligate spending.

Frankly, I'll still work as hard as I'm able for Republicans --- even the one's who spend too much money are better than their opponents. But I sure wish we could find a way to put a lid on the pork barrel.

The transportation bill is funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, not general revenues. That money is buried in a huge Mason jar in Don Young's backyard and does nothing but make the federal deficit look smaller than it really is.

If we anyone objects to spending it, it seems to me that their real objection should be to the collecting of gasoline and transportation excise taxes in the first place.

So fine, we're building some bridges that don't do much but employ Alaskans but is collecting this tax and refusing to spend it on anything any better policy than spending it for its intended purpose? I don't think so.

but to focus on getting real fiscal conservatives in office.  Too many candidates just pay lip service to fiscal conservatism, also I think there is just something about being in congress that makes the taxpayer trough all too tempting-even some of the well known fiscal conservatives aren't above feeding their states at the taxpayer trough.

I would love to see a push for a constitutional amendment for a line item veto.  Since the SCOTUS has already said it isn't constitutional, I would happily support one as a constitutional amendment.  But right now it just seems like too many congressman, dems and reps alike are determined to bring home some extra bacon to their districts.  

I think the GOP leadership in congress is failing miserably on this core principle of conservatism.

with this:

It was easy for an R Congress to say no to the other party's President on spending.  But now an R President can't say no to his own party's spending.  If a D Congress was passing this budget, the President would veto it.  It's sad that he won't now.

Of course, if we had a Democratic majority, they'd be able to force issues they wanted (like finishing the defense spending bills) on Bush, instead of stalling bills for fear of debates on torture

Letting the Democrats in is arguably dangerous for the country.  Look at the eight years of Clinton - we ended up ignoring things until 9/11.

I do not think I am exaggerating.  So we have a bunch of spending.  Big deal.  I think the competence in national security and the tax cuts that come with the GOP are worth the trade-off.

This is the part of the story no one hears.  If, indeed, the highway funds come from money already collected and earmarked for transportation projects, then our objections on the grounds of "principled fiscal conservatism" are a little overwrought.  If the $286.4 billion is being drawn from the general tax coffers, that's a different story altogether.

If it's the excise taxes on gasoline and special transportation districts (e.g. the Dulles corridor in Virginia) we are opposed to, by all means, let's put the requisite pressure on our local officials and representatives.  If streiff is correct about the source of the transportation money, then our ire towards Capitol Hill and the White House is a bit misdirected, since they're only spending the money we gave them to spend.

We're not just talking about a highway bill. Education, medicare, energy, the works.

This site, being a Republican site, doesn't allow for the opposite viewpoint to be expressed, so you really can't be argued with effectively here.

if I give you education, prescription drugs, and energy for the purposes of outrage AND if I am right about the source of funding for the Transportation Bill, can we take that off the table as a subject of outrage and just move it down to "miffed?"

I love me my tax cuts.

But competency in national security?

There has been much about Iraq that has not been competent.  Frankly, I wish we'd left a lot of the war planning and especially the post-war planning to the career professionals instead of the politicians and the think tank boys and the friends of Chalabi - of whom I am not a fan.

I also don't think we've done squat for national security.  On my national security list:  anti-missile defense for passenger aircraft, high-tech PET or whatever scanners for the 130 or so ports, intraoperative communications equipment for first responders nationwide starting with the biggest cities, saner border and immigration policy (how come Kroger can tell you every darn item I and millions of others have purchased and can analyze that info six ways from Sunday for marketing purposes and we can't track and analyze the comings and goings of visitors to this country)?  What have we done to secure our food supply much of which now comes from abroad or must be transported long distances inside the U.S,  what is our plan if the oil spigot is cut off, and on and on.

We're not going to get good government unless we demand it, and giving so-so results a pass because the next guy is worse is not demanding it.  If you tolerate mediocrity you just encourage it.  We need to demand results.

The bill passed is significantly more than the funds included in the HTF would allow, roughly $256 billion over six years.  This bill is $295 billion (if you refuse to count the outrageous gimmick to cut $8.5 billion on the last day of the bil) over five years.  This idea that highways taxes pay for all of this new spending is ridiculous.  

I'm not missing the point. Show me where the funding comes from general revenue. It doesn't.

All taxes no matter what there dedicated use is supposed to be (gas taxes for highways, FICA taxes for Social Security, etc) all go to the general revenues irrespective of where they are credited.  So if you spend more than the credited amount in the respected trust fund, you end up spending out of general revenues.  There is only $256 billion over five years in the Highway Trust Fund.  

Reading your post I really don't think you are in the position to lecture anyone about federal budgeting. I'm sure those cutesy talking points carry the day at freerepublic, nothing against freerepublic mind you, but you need to read my original post.

They are credited to the trust fund. They offset the deficit by being credited to a trust fund. Ergo, they are not general revenue funds. They are a trust fund. By spending those funds they increase the deficit. Now if you look back through the thread you'll see that was the point I was making back before you jumped in without reading.

No matter how much Maybelline you put on the pig you're carrying around, it is still going to be a pig.

we said that this comes out of special funds for taxes - ok, but they still spent it like criminals. and the way they've used it to essentially bribe voters is an indictment itself.

BTW, I LOVE the NTU quote.

Cutesy talking points? Relax. Yes, the American people paid highways taxes for the purposes of highways, and it is not terribly unreasonable for that money to actually go to that purpose.  And for a time after TEA-21 (the 1998 authorization), highway spending aligned well with the amount actually in the Highway Trust Fund.  

My point is that if a bill authorizes, as H.R. 3 in fact does, more money than is credited in the HTF, then the outlays scheduled to flow from the Treasury end up coming out of general revenues.  Trust Funds are accounting gimmicks.  You seem to be either disputing that the bill costs more than $256 billion or asserting that if it does, the Treasury only has to release up to the amount in the HTF.  That is wrong on both accounts.

What would be the correct amount for a transportation bill? Lots of people have made the point that bridges in Alaska and bikepaths in Minnesota are pork projects. However some amount of money is needed to continued construction/repair of infrastructure. Would it have passed muster if it had come within the $283.9 B that President Bush set as the limit?

If you accept that some amount of federal spending on the infrastructure is a good thing then the discussion is just about the amount of waste in a necessary bill.

If your only appeal is to scream about bridges and bikepaths without putting them in context of the fat/muscle ratio in the bill then it's probably only a good tool to raise funds from the faithful. However since any any highway bill would have gotten a similar reception then there's no reason to believe this one is especially onerous.

...(how come Kroger can tell you every darn item I and millions of others have purchased and can analyze that info six ways from Sunday for marketing purposes and we can't track and analyze the comings and goings of visitors to this country)...

Good point. But I'll guarantee the explanation isn't technical. By the time the politicians get finished and the ACLU takes their whack at it we're just luck to be able tell wherethe borders are, let alone who crossed them.

As far as I know, this site always allows of rational discussion of all sides of an issue. What this site does not allow is repetition Democratic Party talking points.

If you have something rational to say you won't have much problem other than somebody disagreeing with you --- and I'm sure you'd agree that's fair.

If they insist on spending 286 BILLION with a B Dollars on transportation why not spend it on the national rail system?

I'll give it a try then:

Abandoning Republicans who abandon my principles teaches Republicans that they can't take me for granted.

Democrats have taken the votes of the urban poor for granted for decades, and look what it's gotten those people: high unemployment, high crime, and lousy schools.  Yet these people keep voting Democrat, for fear of letting the "other guy" win.

If Republicans start to take the votes of fiscal conservatives for granted, assuming that we'll keep voting Republican for fear of letting Pelosi or Clinton get more power, then they may keep give us high spending, more government, and more debt as a reward.

So the choices fiscal conservatives have are to 1) Vote Republican all the time, and never get taken seriously, or 2) only vote for Republicans who stand for the right things, and make strategist keep us in mind.

A Republican party that you have to hold your nose to vote for is not a party worth helping.  The party knew that, too, and make itself very appealing to the base in order to take the Congress in 1994.  But now they're fat and happy, and think that becuase they have so many safe seats full of conservatives, that they only have to fear moderates.

I don't vote to ensure that people with elephant  buttons get elected (that's why I wasn't going to write this; the site is expressly geared toward helping Republicans).  I vote to ensure that this country is governed correctly.  Unless conservatives can make a credible threat to vote elsewhere, Republican strategists will have no reason to ensure that voting Republican is the conservative option, and I won't have any reason to continue voting Republican.

If Alaskans want bridges, let them pay for it themselves with their oil money, instead of forcing New Yorkers and Californians to pay for it.

how much to spend on their road, bridges, and bike paths.  The closer the decision is to home, the harder it is to put these ludicrous projects into a bill.

you are making arguments that I am simply not making.

1. There is a Highway Trust Fund.
   
2. The Highway bill monies come from the trust fund - those on hand and those to be collected during the life of the bill. There is a great deal of dispute, righteous dispute, over whether the HTF will cover the expenditures I found a dozen sources pro and con in about 10 minutes. Choose your poison.
   
3. The HTF balance is used to offset the federal deficit so spending it will shine more light on that issue.
   
4. The monies accredited to the HTF are collected from a variety of transportation related taxes and are earmarked for transportation. Personally, I like paved roads and safe bridges and as I pay for that service everytime I fill up my car I'd like to get it.
   
5. If we are going to howl when money gets spent for the purpose for which it was intended then our real objection should be to a) having a HTF and b) collecting earmarked taxes for the HTF not whining like a bunch of little girls over a bridge built in Anchorage so Alaska could get it's guaranteed 92% return on gasoline taxes.

I always thought we were for good government, wise spending, efficiency, etc.

Just because funds are earmarked for spending on transportation and the proposed expenditures are  tied to the concept of "transportion" doesn't mean that the funds are being spent wisely, prudently, efficiently, and in the public's interest, etc.  The obligation of our government is not just to spend the darn funds, but to spend the funds in a way that gives the taxpayers the most bang for THEIR buck.

What's going on here?

When did our standards for good government and wise spending get so low?

are you carrying a mouse in your pocket? You certainly are neither a conservative nor much of a Republican from your posting history.

Where is your evidence that these funds aren't going to be spent "prudently." Beyond the fact that you many not like the way an overwhelming majority of the House and Senate decided to spend the money.

What is your position? Collect the taxes endlessly and not spend them?

And you didn't get banned.

You said: "...now they're fat and happy..."

I think the Primaries are the places to keep the pressure up on the fat and happy politicians.  We have to insist on voting for the candidate that meets our priorities.  If the incumbent is not fiscally conservative, vote for the alternate candidate... that is what the strategists and politicians will notice.  And you won't necessarily lose the seat.

It seems to me more time is spent on the social items, and less on the fiscal.  It's just assumed that (R) = fiscal conservative; and it's not bearing out this session.

From the rules:

"this site is explicitly meant to serve as a conservative and Republican community. Postings, comments, etc., contrary to this purpose fall under the rubric of "disruptive behavior" and will result in banning"

Sorry but to me this sounds like 'dissension will not be tolerated'.

I would really like to have the opportunity to have an open discussion with people I disagree with.  Preaching to the choir gets old and that seems to be what most of the blogosphere is about.  Sadly I will probably soon be banned and I do not know any other reasonable conservative blogs that allow dissent.  Any recommendations?

Try to have a reasonable discussion or move on.

Your whining about having to obey our rules is really childish. You are a guest in our house, all we ask is that you don't crap on the carpet.

are you talking about?

During our flirtation with comment ratings you were one of a handful of regulars allowed to rate comments and you are going to say that we don't allow you the freedom to debate? What kind of nonsense are your talking?

But don't let facts stand in the way of feeling sorry for yourself.

The party, I think, has mostly done a good job lately in tending to the sensibilities of social conservatives. Not a perfect job, mind you, but a decent one.

Given that I am, in many ways, a social conservative, this has pleased me. In particular I have been thrilled with the administration's choices for judicial nominations.

But I am not just a social conservative. I am also a fiscal conservative. There are two prongs here-- taxes and spending.

On taxes, the administration has been good, but individual state parties have been disasters. A perfect case-in-point is Ohio.

And on spending across the board, the record has been nothing short of pitiful.

Where is the heir to Reagan? Where is the Republican leader who is speaking about Government not being the answer to the problem, but being the problem?

The only problem with it is that it probably wouldn't be too effective. The most likely time for a missle hitting an aircraft would be during takeoff and landing. More likely take-off since it's loaded with fuel. At 40 000 feet, a missle is not likely to   hit it, even with a tracking system. I have heard of the turret domes that can be put on the aircraft, but those take a few seconds to lock onto the missile to scramble it - a few seconds likely not available. Perhaps chaff?

Also, if it were a heat-seaking missile that did hit an aerocraft midflight, I think it's more likely it would go after the engines, especially if it's a heat-seeking missile. If it it hits an engine, so what? The wing would be damaged and the pylon probably destroyed, but it wouldn't bring the plane down by any means. I don't think the terrorists have any sort of high-tech tracking though that could lock onto, say, the tail assembly. That would definitely cripple a plane and it'd be unlikely the plane could be piloted with any significant degree of accuracy at that point.

Not to mention the money for equipping aircraft with a defense measure is even there. Airlines are struggling as-is. They couldn't foot the bill to outfit their fleets. I doubt the government would pay for all of them either, and I'm not sure if I'd even want the government spending money on them.

it is almost like the fiscal conservatives don't want anything to do with social conservatives, and the social conservatives have forgotten all about fiscal conservatism in Washington.

At the moment there doesn't really seem to be a perfect potential candidate that encompasses both in the vein of Reagan.

Congress means we have to give up things that we value the most.

Limited government and strict fiscal spending are no longer possible in this day of modern age.  We have so many agencies that it's very difficult to cut down on them.

The question is better asked...do you want Republicans to spend on frivolous (sp?) construction or transportation projects OR welfare checks?  No offense, but I'll take a massive transportation bill rather than a massive entitlement handouts bill.

You can't expect to vote in Republicans and expect not to give up something we all hold dear to our hearts politically.  Life just doesn't work like that way, sorry, buddies.

Do we really need to go back and revisit how spending and the deficit both exploded while he was President?  Or how he rogered us on Social Security reform by agreeing to a "bipartisan" compromise which included raising FICA and no personal retirement accounts?

Congress hasn't been as bad on spending as the diary makes out. Yes, the transportation and energy bills had pork. Guess what: without an overhaul of the entire US political system, there's going to be pork.

The main problem is that federal agencies have no incentive to be cost-effective, because if they spend less than they are allotted, their budget is cut. And if Congress realizes they are wasteful and cuts their budget, they scream and, depending on the agency, there can be a political cost.

Incentive structures have to be devised to reward fiscal discipline both at the appropriations level and at the actual spending level. That's harder than it sounds and it's been a problem for a very long time. The GOP is still tremendously better than the Democrats... a good bit of the pork is to buy the Democrats off so they don't gank the process up.

That said, in 2008 we need a fiscal conservative... Pawlenty would be good... Sanford has done battle with the GOP legislature in SC (though with mixed results) over their high-spending ways. Presidents are very influential in the budget process and having a strong disciplinarian at the top would be a major help.

Handing Congress to the Democrats is, quite simply, idiotic and counterproductive.

ducking Don't criticize Reagan!

hiding under desk Cold war!

The growing rift in the USA is not between Democrats and Republicans but between Washington "insiders" -- of both parties -- and the masses of us who are unable to control their behavior in office.

The recently passed transportation and energy bills are outrageous examples of federal pork by any reasonable standard, yet are widely accepted as corrupt-government-as-usual. Something's badly wrong here.

The national debt has passed $6 trillion, with no end in sight. Does it matter how high it goes? If so, why aren't conservatives screaming about it?

If we must have the massive debt of a socialist-type country, shouldn't we at least have the social benefits -- universal health care, etc. -- that most socialist countries provide? Just wondering.

Yes, the perfect was indeed the enemy of the good. Excellent catch.

The man gave fiscal conservatism a fighting chance. He took two steps back for the three forward, but he also made the opportunity of 1994 possible. Credit where due.

I was identifying with the original diarist who started his post referring to if you are a conservative who believes in limited government, lower taxes, and modest spending - all of which I do, and strongly.  

Over the past 20+ years this has meant that I have often voted and somewhat identified with Republicans; although, acknowleding my libertarian bent and my moderate social views, I prefer to remain an independent.  I didn't mean to pretend to be a Republican with this post and in many other posts have mentioned that I am an independent. It was not my intent to mislead, and if I did, I apologize.

But perhaps I should quit identifying with Republicans on issues of fiscal conservatism and, in particular, spending, and in that respect, your point is well taken.  I think Adam C and others here have made this point also, although in reference to themselves.

On to substance, I long ago quit assuming that since "a majority of the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly" for something; that it was either prudent or in the best interests of the country.  In this case, I'm more inclined to be swayed by The National Taxpayer's Union assessment that too much of this bill is not prudent.

I do think spending dedicated taxes we have already collected on transportation infrastructure is appropriate, validity of the tax itself aside. I suspect I agree with you about that.  But infrastructure spending could be great for business and great for jobs.

However, you seemed to be saying that since this bill is spending dedicated funds, we (there I go again!) shouldn't care too much what it's being spent on.  You didn't seem to making the argument that the bill is wise, but that we shouldn't care whether it is, or get too outraged if it isn't.  Likewise, I am saying just because it's coming out of dedicated funds doesn't mean the funds should be wasted.  If the tax is going to be collected, the funds should be spent for the intended purpose and spent wisely. It's my money and IMHO I should always be outraged when it is not wisely spent.

Spending 220 Million on a 5.9 mile bridge to an island inhabited by 50 people doesn't seem prudent to me.  Doing something about New York's ancient tunnels including enhancing their security features might be a better expenditure of funds.  In my travels just this summer I've seen tons of bridges and highways in SC, TN and WV that are clearly in need of funds. But it is not my job to come up with more worthy projects.  It's Congress' job. And if they fail to do so, it's the President's job to veto it.

There is a lot of romanticizing of Reagan that is totally unnecessary given what he actually accomplished. I can tell you from personal experience that his tax cut package that eliminated interest deductions for credit cards and automobiles left me worse off than I was paying a higher tax rate.

and walked as far as he could.  Who even proposes shutting down the Department of Education these days?

Who criticizes the growth in government or the pork?  McCain... that's about it.  And he has other problems that overshadow how good he has been on this one issue.  Then there's Flake in the House who does good work but has a low profile.

Reagan turned around the assumption of the Carter days that all problems were solved by throwing money at them and creating a new government agency.  He made possible the grass roots, small government Republican revolution in 1994 by talking about the negative side of big government including welfare dependency and unsustainable spending.

It's entirely appropriate to ask who follows in those footsteps.  Who would propose closing a whole department?  Who would talk about the negative effect of government dependency?  Who would put their effort behind reigning in spending instead of finding political gain in it?

That's why I was excited by Coburn, but I'm now a bit disillusioned at his yea votes for both pork bills.

but we're spending on both... remember the Medicare Bill.  If the Dems are the Party of No right now... we're the Party of Yes.  Yes to spending on welfare dependency.  Yes to spending on pork.  Yes to spending on bridges to nowhere.

Sanford, Owens, Pawlenty, GOV Bush, or McCain.  They all have stellar (or just shy of stellar) records on FisCon issues.

All the Democrats voted for it, and almost all the Republicans voted against it. You can gripe all you want about the Democrats being deficit hawks without having an interest in lowering taxes, but the fact of the matter is that we must pay our obligations before lowering taxes. You don't rack up a $40,000 credit card before quitting your six-figure job and taking up a job at a McDonald's restaurant. Why are so many of you GOPers so willing to ignore the fact that fiscal responsibility is a central tenet of the Democratic Party (as evidenced by their support of PAYG), and that "tax and spend" is a relic of the 80's.

controlling at least one at at times both houses of congress.  

I sometimes wonder what Reagan might have accomplished had he been in Bush's shoes with the GOP controlling both houses of congress.  

in admitting you are not a conservative. The original diarist is a noted conservative, so I was amazed that you identified with him.

On the substance.

You may not like the fact that the House and the Senate voted for the bill and may not take the fact that the bill was overwhelmingly supported as being indicative of its prudentiality. I might agree. But we have no other yardstick that even comes close to bipartisan support of a spending measure to evaluate it.

Personally, I like good roads and safe bridges as I have said elsewhere on this subject. I pay taxes directly into a trust fund for that purpose and I would like to get my money's worth. The money sitting as a "trust fund" does me no good. Either spend it or get out of the highway business. I don't particularly care which but paying taxes and getting bupkis makes me mad.

On the prudence of the projects I think you are just myopic. You may think the bridge in Alaska makes sense, but if you are one of those 50 people and think you might like to evacuate that island in case of a tsunami like the ones that hit Alaska in 1946 and 1957 you wouldn't think of that bridge as imprudent expense. It could save your life.

Similarly, that guy on an island in Alaska may wonder why in the heck he is funding a bridge over the Potomac to make life easier here. His point would be just as valid as yours.

Is a good offense.  And that is where this administration has gotten it right.  They are taking the fight to the terrorists, which is really the safest course of action.

On the other hands, the Democrats (as Clinton's administration has shown) don't take the fight to them - and they hope we can stop the attacks.  The problem is... the terrorists only have to get lucky once to kill hundreds, if not thousands.

even if we consider the money is dedicated some of the projects themselves don't seem like a good use of money.

Takes me back to the idea of the feds just dividing the money up into block grants and telling the states to decide how they would spend the money, rather than earmarking millions for bridges that don't seem to serve a massive need.

I object to "the collecting of gasoline and transportation excise taxes in the first place."  The whole thing is out of control.

I almost mentioned McCain but he is just so bad on a few issues... if he would simmer down on campaign finance and move right on illegal immigration I would be OK with him, but it's a tough sell at this point.

On spending he definitely is strong, though his tax views are not too good.

I'm not a budget policy wonk.  In fact, with the growth in spending we've seen under this administration, after having watched the growth in spending under the previous administration, I'm becoming a budget nihilist.  I don't understand enough about how the federal budget gets made and spent to make a good recommendation about how we could change the status quo and stop the government from growing.  It all seems to boil down to a massive failure of the will when confronted with the political reality of an electorate that is, in the words of Andy Ferguson:

"Americans are rhetorically libertarian but operationally statist; we pretend we don't like government, but we crave its comforts and blandishments."

The Clinton administration took this observation and transformed it into a religion, and now everyone, including the Republicans, are disciples.  When the energy bill and the highway bill passed, the Cato Institute promptly began taking them apart as the pork-fests that they seem to be.  Medicare is also on a track to self-destruct.  Social Security we already know about.  And I frankly don't think anything is going to stop this growth until the entire system is pushed right over the brink of collapse.  Then Americans will begin to think and begin to set priorities again.

We're a nation of intensively cultivated interest groups, all sucking away at the federal teat.  None of it makes any sense to me any more; the more I read, the more confused I become.  I want to reduce the size of government, I'd love to vote for politicians who would actually do it, but I don't even know where to begin any more.  

Part of the problem, I think, is that psychologically the Bush Administration has tried to have it every way it can:  wage two wars, cut taxes, and increase spending all at the same time.  How could Bush veto a highway bill that was passed by such an overwhelming majority?  And the vast majority of Americans respond to any increase in income with an increase in consumption, not an increase in savings.  We don't demand of our congress and our President:  "Listen, cut the budget.  Cut the programs.  Cut my taxes.  Stop the growth in spending.  I don't care what it takes, we'll manage.  I'll try to save more of the money I take home from my paycheck.  I'll try to invest more of the money that I save.  I promise not to be so selfish tomorrow.  I'll try, at least."

We won't say that to our legislators.  We're whores.  We're unfit to govern ourselves.  We can't be trusted with our own money.  We don't care about the future, and we're going to get a bad one because of it.

With apologies to P.J. O'Rourke and Andy Ferguson, because it's become a cliche, here is the foreward from Parliament of Whores once again.  Buy the book.  It is the only thing I've ever read about the Federal Budget that makes any sense anymore, aside from some of the policy papers at Cato, and the browbeating my grandparents used to give me and my parents about spending beyond our means.

This book constitutes the sum total of my knowledge about the budget process, except for the fact that I most certainly can't see or feel the $7,000+ of benefits that I supposedly receive from the Federal government.  I suppose they're all around me, and the world would end if they were reduced to say, $5,000.  Certainly there are interest groups who would have me believe that is the case, and evidently our congressional representatives believe them, not me.

I've become one of Nick Danger's LTTs.  I'll do whatever you guys say.  

Why so hostile?

I wasn't "feeling sorry for myself," I was just very, very reluctant to advocate voting against Republicans on this site.  I was under the impression that this is a Republican site, not a conservative site, and such writing would not be accepted.

I'd think you and everyone else would be glad if people took my approach and tried to stay Republican-only, regardless of their personal views, by default.

is a sure way to make sure the party does nothing for you.  Thats why I like Libertarians.  They make parties work to get their vote.  Another example is the Latin American demographic.  Both parties bend over backwards for them because they know their vote is based on who will perform for them.

We have had so many years of pro-life/pro-choice politics, yet no legislature has taken up the task and the issues continues to this day to be deffered to the courts.

the money given in block grants to the states, for them to decide what needs to be built and what doesn't.

Seems I remember seeing a link somewhere about money earmarked for a ferry system in a city in California, and the City said they didn't want a ferry system-does that make sense?

I am going to go google though, make sure that fact is right.

I think McCain focuses on Campaign Finance Reform specifically because it has such a close correlation with the Pork we are seeing in these bills.  When a corporation or industry can throw a few million or even a few thousand at a couple of congressmen and in return get exponentially more back in pork and giveaways the system is broken.  I think taking some of this questionable money out of the equation would go a long way to ensuring that our tax dollars are spent on things that are actually important to the US as a whole.

Its not just about the waste of money either.  Sometimes it's downright dangerous.  For instance:

"A provision tucked into the 1,724-page energy bill that Congress is poised to enact today would ease export restrictions on bomb-grade uranium, a lucrative victory for a Canadian medical manufacturer and its well-wired Washington lobbyists."

Yes, In another discussion along these lines, I mentioned the Club for Growth.  They seem fearless about challenging high-spending Republicans in primaries.

If President Bush fails to veto the two recent pork bills, then that group ought to see a surge in donations.

I've actually never given any money to a political candiate, party, or group in my life (don't exactly have the money sitting around to do so), but I know I'm tempted to make the first.

What Richard Viguerie is, in my opinion, simply irresponsible.  Particularly with the way the Democrats are just going off the edge of the map.

We just can't afford to let them claw their way back.

campaign finance reform doesn't take money out of the system. Besides the fact I think it's counterproductive and contrary to the First Amendment, it DOES NOT WORK. Few people think it ever can.

When will the American voters stop harping on the need for Constitutional Amendments ie(Term Limits, Balance Budgets, etc.)?  The power is in the hands of the voters.  With a 50% voting record of elegible voters participating in a good election, and 100% complainers, it is no wonder that we get the representation that we do.  Every two and six years we can elect the people who will do our bidding, if we are willing to exert more of an effort than just blogging. It is true that some of our elected officals are a disappointment, but for 30 years (get real).  The founders gave us the tools if we will just use them.

Have you checked the top story on the front page: conservative not Republican.

Whatever approach you feel comfortable with is pretty much up to use but I don't think you should imply some kind of omerta is imposed upon conservatives because that isn't the case.

Congressional spending habits were far worse. Although it would be dishonest to say that defense spending had nothing to do with running up the national debt (they were a one of the largest bugetary components), each year Reagan pushed for spending reductions and entitlement reforms, and each year he was denied by the often Democratically controlled Congress who were passing budgets that averaged 4.6% higher than what Reagan submitted, including the 1986 fiscal year budget that was 13.3% higher. Compounding the problem, each year these spending increases were baked into the budget, setting a new baseline for the next year. Total outlays grew $465.5 billion, 69%, from 1981-1989 and defense spending only accounted for $146 billion, 31%, of that. However, if blame is to be placed, it should rest with the inflationary policies of the Nixon and Carter administrations. The dollar's collapse meant the government had to buy at higher prices, inflation-adjusted outlays jumped, and statospheric interest rates meant government debt was now more expensive.

misunderstood, or just got bad info.

I did find this:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/02/highway.bill.ap/

His favorite, he said, was $2.3 million for landscaping on the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California. "I wonder what Ronald Reagan would say."

And here is a list of McCain's list of pork projects-I think he has a point on a lot of those.

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&a
mp;Content_id=1600

I'll just let it fly from now on.

Obviously anything I'd say can't be TOO far off the mainstream here, if I haven't deviated from the Rs since 9/11/2001.

I think that would be a great thing for the president to have, and it could shut down some of the spending add ons to bills that often have nothing to do with the bill being passed.

The SCOTUS says they are a no go, so the only option is an amendment, and I am behind that one.

Reducing the marginal rax rate from 70% to 50% to 28% (that second step remaining budget neutral) is going to require eliminatefd special tax expenditures.

Are you honestly telling us that you would have saved more money on just the deduction of interest from your income than on a lower tax rate on income in general? You had to be absurly in debt with massive interest payments -- a possiblity in the early '80s, but that is Nixon/Carter fallout, so your blame would seem misplaced.

Once upon a time, a Republican Congress got a majority for that bill.

I wonder if enough deficit-hawk Democrats could be talked into joining some Republicans into getting an amendment passed?

are having too much fun feeding at the taxpayer trough, so they aren't too keen on passing one.

But a strong fiscal conservative who would introduce one would get my vote.

that's exactly what I'm telling you.

Student loans, eh? Credit card interest running 25%+. Going from filing schedule A to filing the short form.

Reagan just wasn't a very strong social conservative. And reading some of his personal letters, he didn't even seem to like that part of the party much. His support for gay teachers in California would upset most social conservative Republican today.

Economically, the clearest changes would have been lower deficits since Congress continually spent an average of 5% more each year than Reagan requested. Also the 1986 Tax Reform Act wouldn't had what Reagan called a huge mistake, reraising the capital gains tax after cutting it in 1981. It was dubbed "necessary fallout" to get Dems to vote for the legislation. Without it there is no dollar inflation and possibly no tax increase by Bush 41.

Neither of the Bush presidents have been supply-side believers.

Do you mean the current laws don't work or that it would never work?  I ask because I agree that the current laws are weak and full of holes but I believe we would certainly benefit from removing some of the huge amounts of soft money that are involved.

One example of what goes on every day:

"The first offer I got was from the pharmaceutical business groups that are pushing for this bill, an offer of substantial campaign support for my son Brad in his run for Congress."

-Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich

"Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress."

-------

"Campaign contributions up to the hundreds of thousands of dollars from a single source are not healthy for democracy."  -Sen McCain (R-AZ)

If we are going to spend $50 billion a year regardless, why not $50 on social spending? That could do a lot of good. The money in the transportation and energy bills are corporate giveaways where far less of it reaches ordinary people and almost none of it reaches those who are poor.

don't use roads or electricity? Or the companies building and repair roads, bridges, ferries, etc don't have employees?

about the Washington DC branch of the paty "abandoning" us.  I don't have enough hours in the day to gather all the links to the spending examples since 2000, but we can all hopefully agree that the Farm Bill and the No Child Left Behind bill were W's attempts to set that "New Tone in Washington" he ran on.

And there are others...the Airline Industry Bailout, Medicare/Prescription Drugs, etc. were sold (at least implicitly) as good issues to address and meet the Left halfway on, trying to get things done "for the good of the people".  The problem continues to be NOT that we are being abandoned, but that in trying to get along we are, left AND right, being sold out to the fight to keep or regain power.  I'm a Republican to the core, and will never abandon the party, but frankly all this "getting along", and "working toward common ground" nonsense is evolving into media fodder that can only help the left.

Does anyone think that only Republican politicians are sending these huge sums of money home?  Of course the Democrats are getting JUST AS MUCH of the money...but come election time, the Dems are going to be accusing the Republicans of spending too much and offering fiscal restraint as the reason they should be elected.  Do you think the election season press coverage is going to remind us that the Dems spent that money too?

Now is the time to get on our Republican leaders and tell them to stop trying to placate the minority...to get along.  We should be telling them to attend to business regardless of the minority.  Judges, Conservative agenda items, "nuclear option", etc.  They need the Lee Iacocca message from us: lead, follow, or get the (expletive removed in accordance with posting guidelines) out of the way.  If they don't LEAD, they will be following in '06/'08 and won't be able to figure out why.

I'm giving my Texas Pols that message...from Kay Bailey on down.

The American public speaks as if its statist, but votes libertarian.

Polls consistently show support for statist policies, like higher taxes, universal healthcare, and essentially militarizing the border.

However whenever it comes to an actual vote, taxes get rejected, universal care gets rejected (even in places like Oregon), and immigration friendly candidates win.

At TPM Cafe, Marshall (I think) wrote that the public is center-left on economic issues and center-right on social issues, but this just isn't true. Its wishful thinking by the new socialists (that refuse to admit they are essentially socialists) who are paying too much attention to the state preferences of polls, not the revealed preferences of elections.

oversight.  A politician brings dollars to those who vote for him; the voters it POs have absolutely no recourse since they aren't in that district.  Though I do agree with your overall sentiment that people are, by and large, stupid and/or lazy.  Such is life.

(1) Many of these pork products will never be touched by the truly poor: horse trails, museaum parking lots, bridges to no where.

(2) The poor don't work in construction. And such a small flow actually gets down there that in a $100 million project, I'd be surprised if even $1 million gets to anybody under the poverty line.

(3) As I said, the pork in the highway and energy bill are just corporate giveaways. If you want to count corporate handouts as helping the poor, don't complain next time somebody said that Republicans don't understand economics, b/c you clearly don't.

(4) That single mother that could use better child care vouchers would probably give up a little road condition for those vochers.I doubt any of them would give up their vouchers just to have a little smoother ride.

I just don't even think it is possible to have a higher tax bill with only eliminating deductions and the size of the '86 rate cuts. Rates came down ~40%, that means the deduction would have needed to save you 40% too, and given what you are describing it doesn't sound like you were in the 50% bracket.

Call me stumped.

dependency is always superior to independence.

1-- most of the projects are not horse trails, etc. Most of it is paving roads and repairing bridges.

2-- Just bizarre. I guess those guys driving the mixers are all millionaires.

3-- You saying it doesn't mean anything. If you think public works doesn't help working people then you are clearly the one who needs to drop by Borders and pick up an economics book.

4-- Great. That worked real well from 1964 until 1994. Hopefully we learned our lesson and won't repeat this nonsense again.

First of all, the name Moonbat cracks me up. True, the Democrat establishment is still beholden to the MoveOn, Kossacks, and Deaniac crowd (btw, what is DU?  it escapes me). The Republicans have been very dissappointing for the fact they are spending like drunken sailors. Has Porky Pig joined the GOP? Because we are in a war, and most likely will be in some kind of warlike situation for awhile, abandoning the GOP at this point in time is not an option. There has to be a way the base can force the politicians feet to the fire without giving the GOP the figurative finger and starting a new nationwide Conservative party. Republicans have stressed the big tent idea, which in general I am more comfortable with in regard to social issues (abortion; I am pretty much on the right, but thinks Roe v. Wade must be chipped away at rather than overturned outright)...but on the other hand there has to be limits and boundaries that the whole Republican/Conservative/Libertarian family are not willing to transgress....one of them being fiscal restraint.

Are you satisfied?

Look you obviously 1) don't know what you're talking about as you've made abundantly clear over a very long period of time on a variety of subjects and 2) claiming to be able to recreate my income tax when you know nothing about my finances is just profoundly stupid.

For the record, my tax bracket decreased 1.75%. Don't spend it all in one place.

If the American public votes libertarian, why are legislators judged on, and rewarded for, their ability to bring pork back to their districts?  It's never-ending:  "My state pays more to the federal government than it gets in return."  "If I elected, I will preserve Podunk AFB from BRAC."  "I support (sugar price supports, expanded ethanol use)  etc., etc.  On and on it goes.  Sure, we hate taxes, but we looooove government spending.  Libertarianism is fine for those people in the next district, but we deserve our handouts.  

Whose interpretation of voter's "intentions" is correct. I think the politicians get away with murder and say things to get elected they know they have no intention of doing.  Where is Bill Clinton's "smaller, less costly and smarter" federal government today?  Where is any of the fiscal conservatism that so many conservatives were promised under this Administration?  

As far as the budget process is concerned, I think our experiment in democracy has failed completely.  We're all living on borrowed time and borrowed money and specious projections.  My goal for the next ten years is to reduce all of my liabilities as close to 0 as I can get them, reduce my personal debt to as close to 0 as I can get it, and stuff as much money away in savings and tangible assets as I can personally manage.  I no longer believe that either the voting public or the people they elect have any ability to rein in the spending before the catastrophe occurs.  My pessimism about the financial prudence of this country is boundless, and frankly I don't think anyone knows what they're talking about.  

Maybe I'm just in a sour mood today, but I don't think 80% of the people in this country could supply you with the definition of the word "statist" and apply it to the policies of the government if you asked them.  I don't trust our democracy any more -- I think this country is a vast collection of greedy interest groups who all cook their numbers to maximize their particular ability to slop from the federal budget trough.  

doesn't necessarily stop them from still infiltrating the country, though. I think we have a false sense of security that since we're fighting in Iraq, they all just kinda migrate there too. Fighting them in Iraq doesn't really prevent them from attacking us at home. The best way to get them here would be to suspend most of our basic freedoms and root them out violently, but then we aren't really protecting our way of life if we have our whole lives under surveilance (moreso than we already do. More overtly). While body counts do mean less terrorists, it's like trying to kill a weed by cutting it. It'll regrow again. You have to kill it's root. This idea has already been discussed in length so I won't get into it, but without being all touchy-feely we do need to change our international image.  If we're going to keep chipping away at our personal freedoms at home, we might as well go under martial law and start rooting out terrorists and completley closing off our borders. Hey, it'd work. I really would not like to see it happen, though.

...just had to say that...

I'm looking at a chart that summarizes the changes between '86 to '88 (it ignore '87). The smallest marginal drop I see is ~10%, but that is for a small slice. There is an area that doesn't have a marginal decrease until after taking the SD.

I never claimed to recalculate your income tax profile. I even limited what I said by saying that I just don't see how it can happen from deductions alone, meaning that if there were other reasons I could be wrong, such as tax credits or rules changes.

And who are you? Somehow I've upset you in the past, no doubt b/c you were wrong on something.

this week.  For the exact reasons you mention.

try 1981-82

If the American public votes libertarian, why are legislators judged on, and rewarded for, their ability to bring pork back to their districts?

Do you have anything besides just your intuition saying this? It is entirely understandable for a district to vote out of office somebody who cannot get a share of the pork since that means they are giving up a lot of tax dollars and not even getting the slighest in return. However, you seem to phrase it as if somebody voting against these porkosauruses will get voted out of office.

That just doesn't seem to happen. When the shares are divided equally, people don't seem to get upset and throw their rep out.

I also didn't mean to imply that the public was strong liberatrians, just weak ones.

There will always be fighting in Congress for benefits, such as subsidies for yourself, but somebody in Washington isn't going to get voted out of office for not supporting a farm policy that doesn't affect anybody in the state. The residents are ideologically for planning policies, but will surely take what is given to them.

That is why it falls on the the delegates to keep each other in line. When somebody pushes for costly benefits to help his electorate, others need to step up and resist. They are not going to be taken out of office for it.

in too much of a back and forth here but I fully admit I am not a Republican. However, I proudly claim the mantle of a fiscal conservative.  I am well aware of Mr. Viguerie and enjoyed seeing him interviewed several times in the last year in connection with his new book and I agree with him about much.  (It never occurred to me he was the actual diariest, I assume it was a fan using his name! My esteem for RedState continues to grow.)

I disagree with you that "we have no other yardstick that even comes close to bipartisan support of a spending measure to evaluate it."  Indeed we do.  We have the evaluations of groups like the Taxpayer's Union and the opinions and evaluations of persons we esteem, such as Mr. Viguerie.  We also have our own knowledge about how and why bipartisan support is achieved.

And I find your argument about the Alaskan bridge to be one I'd expect a bleeding heart liberal to make, not a conservative.  ("I don't care how much it costs - we're saving people from their own folly! Big Mommy government must act - they could die!")

Poppycock.  Those people knew there was no bridge when they moved there, it was factored into the price they paid for the property, they willingly assumed the risks and now you want the rest of America to spend hundreds of millions to vastly increase the value of their property and save them from the folly of their own decisions?  What ever happened to personal responsibility?  They want a bridge, let them pay for it.  If they are scared to live there without a bridge, let 'em move.  The ROI for the American people on this project is not high enough to justify it.

The criteria for public works needs to be broader.  If a bridge over the Potomoc will alleviate significant traffic congestion, save fuel, reduce accidents and their attendant strain on public resources, reduce air pollution, aid commerce, etc. then by all means I'm fine with spending money on it. And I say that as someone who lives no where near the Potomac.

When it comes to this bill we may just have to agree to disagree.

but I don't think 80% of the people in this country could supply you with the definition of the word "statist" and apply it to the policies of the government if you asked them.

Of course not, but that isn't really important. Its like asking a single neuron in your brain to interpret the date from your optic nerve and recognize a car. Individuals, like neurons, are can be really dumb. But a collection of these massive stupid units can still be very powerful at problem solving.

I don't have much more trust in the political class than you, but I do have more in the general public.

I don't trust our democracy any more -- I think this country is a vast collection of greedy interest groups who all cook their numbers to maximize their particular ability to slop from the federal budget trough.

I think its less of a problem with our democracy and more a problem with the ruling class. As the professional politicians and innovative judges throw wrentches into the machinery, the public seems to to keep trying to repair things in an ad hoc manner. This leaves a huge jumble of parts and duct tape all over the place, but the country still hums along. Things like California's Prop 13 and TABOR in other states are good example of imperfect legislation that is used to restrain an even worse government. On the federal level, however, there is no hope for things like this.

playing offense and defense.

And you might have wanted to specify the year ealier in the thread.

that your argument leaves me shaking my head in disbelief.

1-- the National Taxpayers Union and other groups are no better at measuring the wisdom of spending bills that a Congressional vote. They are after grant and foundation money and they have an audience to please. The fact that you like what they have to say doesn't make what they say valid.

2-- Again, it's nice to be cavalier with the lives and livelihoods of people you don't know but I think as a society we frown on that. Even as a cold-hearted conservative I don't want people dying in the streets. If building a bridge makes some of my countrymen little safer and improves their standard of living I'm for it and I offer no apologies.

3-- So you are in favor of pork as long as it does things like reduce air pollution but you are against pork when it might save lives. Your choice,  not mine.

you have no power. Staying home is, of course, like voting for the Democrats. By the time the general election rolls around, the primaries are a distant memory. Basic game theory says that your power is directly proportional to how many winning coalitions you are a necessary party.

In the U.S.'s winner take all system, there are two coallitions. Those with the power are the swing voters.

My recommendation to fisca