0
   

Republicans: determined to bust all budgets

 
 
nimh
 
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 06:13 am
Quote:
In Congress, the GOP Embraces Its Spending Side

By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thu Aug 4, 1:00 AM ET

GOP leaders this week sent House Republicans home for the summer with some political tips, helpfully laid out in 12 "Ideas for August Recess Events." Drop by a military reserve center to highlight increased benefits, the talking points suggest. Visit a bridge or highway that will receive additional funding, or talk up the new prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Having skirted budget restraints and approved nearly $300 billion in new spending and tax breaks before leaving town, Republican lawmakers are now determined to claim full credit for the congressional spending. Far from shying away from their accomplishments, lawmakers are embracing the pork, including graffiti eradication in the Bronx, $277 million in road projects for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and a $200,000 deer-avoidance system in New York.

When the year started, President Bush made spending restraint a mantra, laying out an austere budget that would freeze non-security discretionary spending for five years and setting firm cost limits on transportation and energy bills. But now, as Congress fills in the details of the budget plan, there is little interest in making deep cuts and enormous pressure to spend.

Lawmakers have seen little to fear from a political backlash, some acknowledge, and Bush has yet to wield his veto pen. [..]

When lawmakers return in the fall, they are almost certain to vote for more tax cuts. They also will vote on a huge new defense spending bill. But proposals for cutting entitlement programs including Medicaid have yet to pick up much support.

"If you look at fiscal conservatism these days, it's in a sorry state," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of only eight House members to vote against the $286.5 billion transportation bill that was passed the day before the recess. "Republicans don't even pretend anymore."

Last week, Congress approved transportation and energy bills that burst through the president's cost limits. Annual spending bills are inching above caps set by Congress itself in its budget plan for 2006. And a massive water projects bill passed by the House last month authorizes spending that would exceed current levels by 173 percent. [..]

Indeed, Congress has exceeded the allocations or assumptions in its budget resolution four times -- and the year's legislative work is far from complete. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, those budget violations have raised spending through 2010 by roughly $2.2 billion above Congress's limits and tacked $115 billion onto the federal budget deficit through the end of decade, including $33 billion in 2006 alone.

That $33 billion may be tantamount to a rounding error in a $2.6 trillion budget, but it is 10 percent of the $333 billion budget deficit the White House has forecast for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.

"There's a rising level of frustration with the disconnect between where the vast majority of conservatives are in this country and how Congress is behaving," said former representative Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), whose Club for Growth political action committee finances the campaigns of conservative candidates. "There's going to be a wake-up call sooner or later."

For now, Congress and the White House are locked in a pattern of skirting their own constraints. In 2004, Bush demanded that no highway bill exceed $256 billion. Under pressure, he increased his limit to $284 billion this year. Congress responded with a five-year, $286.5 billion measure, but even that figure may be deceptive, Flake warned. The bill actually authorizes expenditures of $295 billion but assumes that, on the last day of the bill's life, Congress will rescind $8.5 billion in unused funds.

"Nobody believes that's going to happen," Flake said. "It's frankly a pretty transparent gimmick."

Bush set a firm cost limit of $6.7 billion for tax breaks in the energy bill. Congress then approved breaks worth $11.5 billion over 10 years in an energy bill that will cost $12.3 billion overall. In late June, the White House hastily requested an additional $975 million to finance unanticipated veterans' health care costs for 2005. The Senate responded with $1.5 billion.

So far, Congress has completed only two of 13 annual spending bills, but both -- one primarily financing the Interior Department, the other funding Congress -- busted lawmakers' prescribed spending caps, by $134 million. The House and Senate have passed spending plans for the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education that exceed Bush's request by billions.

And on July 14, the House overwhelmingly approved a major water bill that authorizes projects worth $10.3 billion over 10 years -- $4.4 billion in the first five. In 2000, Congress approved a similar act worth a fraction of that, $1.6 billion over five years.

To fiscal conservatives, it is not just the total cost of the bills but also their content. Covering 1,752 pages, the highway bill is the most expensive public works legislation in U.S. history, complete with 6,376 earmarked projects, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. Kern County, Calif., home of powerful House Ways and Means Chairman Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R), snagged $722 million in projects, or nearly $1,000 per person. Los Angeles County, with clogged highways and 10 million people, will receive barely $60 per resident. [..]

"With Congress unable to keep its pocketbook pocketed, it would be nice if President Bush could be counted upon to cast his first vetoes on bills so richly deserving of them," the editors of the conservative National Review wrote yesterday.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,325 • Replies: 23
No top replies

 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 06:15 am
As always, its the details that are most striking ... can you believe this?:

Quote:
Kern County, Calif., home of powerful House Ways and Means Chairman Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R), snagged $722 million in projects, or nearly $1,000 per person. Los Angeles County, with clogged highways and 10 million people, will receive barely $60 per resident.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 06:21 am
On the up side is the Highway bill. Maybe the roads of the nation will finally have a chance of being transformed into something that will last.
Main thing here however is that they embraced it so warmly.
Now all we have to see is if President Bush endorses it or takes out the red stamp. I have to admit it is a hard sell considering there are many things which this entire package does not address; but it is a something and for right now that may have to be enough. Hard digging out of the mess Clinton left us.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 06:24 am
Clinton left you a budget surplus. Jeez even I know that.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 06:32 am
goodfielder wrote:
Clinton left you a budget surplus. Jeez even I know that.


He also left the base for what became our current budget difficulties due to his inept handling of Bin Laden when he had the chance and more than golden opportunity.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 06:39 am
Silly Goodfielder, don't you recognize conservative catechism when you read it?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 06:44 am
Sturgis wrote:
He also left the base for what became our current budget difficulties due to his inept handling of Bin Laden when he had the chance and more than golden opportunity.

There's a lot of causes for your "current budget difficulties" right there in this article, and none of 'em's got **** to do with bin Laden.

"Hey, it was 9/11 that made us spent $1,000 per person on public works in Kern County, Calif., in the most expensive public works legislation in U.S. history! All bin Laden's fault, cant you see?!"
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 07:05 am
Setanta wrote:
Silly Goodfielder, don't you recognize conservative catechism when you read it?


Got it Set. I just slipped over on my arse on the ashes just as I was reaching for my sackcloth.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 07:10 am
Sturgis wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
Clinton left you a budget surplus. Jeez even I know that.


He also left the base for what became our current budget difficulties due to his inept handling of Bin Laden when he had the chance and more than golden opportunity.
\

Sturgis you're not going to like this. Clinton was a great President. As a man he was a complete arsehole, sorry about the crudity but it fits, he really was not a good man but as a President he did the US proud. From me as an interested foreigner I knew he was a dickhead in his private life and I am truly sorry for his family that he was, but on the international stage he gave America huge cachet. I am very sorry he's not there now. Bush has destroyed your country, he and his cabal have ruined it. I am so sad it came to this.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 07:22 am
Know what's funny? Even so the US is still the greatest country in the world.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 07:25 am
McGentrix wrote:
Know what's funny? Even so the US is still the greatest country in the world.


Of course it is. Just like mine is Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 07:28 am
goodfielder wrote:
You're going to like this. Clinton was a complete arsehole, sorry about the crudity but it fits, he really was not a good man From me as an interested foreigner I knew he was a dickhead in his private life and I am truly sorry for his family that he was, but on the international stage he destroyed your country, he and his cabal have ruined it. I am so sad it came to this.


And I am so glad I can edit things so they better suit my needs. This is quite similar to how anti-Bush folk function on a regular basis so it shouldn't come as much of a shock to you.


On a more serious note, I need to ask why you are so darned concerned about this country if you are not even a resident of it. I stay out of Australian politics because it is not my place to be a judge and jury. It would be interesting if non-residents and non citizens of the U.S. could return this decency.

As to your daft final point, George Bush has not destroyed the country. The United States is far from destroyed although the Dems. are doing their darndest to annihilate every last shred of it.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 07:45 am
Sturgis wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
You're going to like this. Clinton was a complete arsehole, sorry about the crudity but it fits, he really was not a good man From me as an interested foreigner I knew he was a dickhead in his private life and I am truly sorry for his family that he was, but on the international stage he destroyed your country, he and his cabal have ruined it. I am so sad it came to this.


And I am so glad I can edit things so they better suit my needs. This is quite similar to how anti-Bush folk function on a regular basis so it shouldn't come as much of a shock to you.


On a more serious note, I need to ask why you are so darned concerned about this country if you are not even a resident of it. I stay out of Australian politics because it is not my place to be a judge and jury. It would be interesting if non-residents and non citizens of the U.S. could return this decency.

As to your daft final point, George Bush has not destroyed the country. The United States is far from destroyed although the Dems. are doing their darndest to annihilate every last shred of it.


Sturgis if you can tell Bush and his mates to stop trying to impose the will of the evil Bush/Cheney cabal on the rest of the world and if he says, Sturgis, damn right, I'll do just that, then I will stay out of it, I guarantee I will not type a word on here.

But while I'm waiting I will go right ahead and have a say about it. Why? Because Bush's America is trying to rule the world and some of us are not happy about it. We don't like tyranny. We will fight it.
Do you even know what your own govenment is trying to do?

Check it out.

From the Monroe Doctrine (which was bad enough and led to atrocities of its own) to the PNAC. Hello? I have a right to voice my concerns. You can vote if you want to do something about it, I can't.

I am most assuredly not anti-American - but you can put me down as anti-Bush/Cheney cabal big time. You might be okay with fascism, I'm not.

Oh and while I'm at it - how's that budget deficit going? Might be okay if the record budget deficit only affected the US but it won't. It will drag us all down. Government bonds being issued again, oh okay that will sort it out.

Am I wrong? Wait and see. It will get very ugly.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 08:22 am
The raging ideological disease of casual discourse in this country right now is to equate the pinhead in the White House with the nation at large, and to accuse those who oppose his idiotic and ruinous policies as being "un-American." The dim-witted assumption is that if you don't love the Shrub, you don't love America. That attitude is not simply stupidity personified, it is a disgusting comment on the patriotism of those who retail it.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 09:53 am
Sturgis wrote:
On a more serious note, I need to ask why you are so darned concerned about this country if you are not even a resident of it.

Because everything your president decides, affects us all. Comes with being a powerful nation. Should come with a sense of responsibility.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 09:55 am
The Republican pork barrel


AT $286.4 BILLION, the highway bill just passed by Congress is the most expensive public works legislation in US history. In addition to funding the interstate highway system and other federal transportation programs, it sets a new record for pork-barrel spending, earmarking $24 billion for a staggering 6,376 pet projects, spread among virtually every congressional district in the land. The enormous bill -- 1,752 pages long -- wasn't made public until just before it was brought to a vote, and so, as The New York Times noted, ''it is safe to bet that none of the lawmakers, not even the main authors, had read the entire package."

That didn't stop them from voting for it. It passed 412 to 8 in the House, 91 to 4 in the Senate.

Huge as the bill was, it wasn't quite huge enough for Representative Don Young of Alaska, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. ''It's not as big as what he'd like," a committee spokesman said, ''but is still a very good bill and will play a major role in addressing transportation and highway needs."

One wonders what more Young could have wanted. The bill funnels upward of $941 million to 119 earmarked projects in Alaska, including $223 million for a mile-long bridge linking an island with 50 residents to the town of Ketchikan on the mainland. Another $231 million is earmarked for a new bridge in Anchorage, to be named -- this is specified in the legislation -- Don Young's Way. There is $3 million for a film ''about infrastructure that demonstrates advancements in Alaska, the last frontier." The bill even doffs its cap to Young's wife, Lu: The House formally called it ''The Transportation Equity Act -- a Legacy for Users," or TEA-LU.

Christmas didn't come early just for Alaska. Meander through the bill's endless line items and you find a remarkable variety of ''highway" projects, many of which have nothing to do with highways: Horse riding facilities in Virginia ($600,000). A snowmobile trail in Vermont ($5.9 million). Parking for New York's Harlem Hospital ($8 million). A bicycle and pedestrian trail in Tennessee ($532,000). A daycare center and park-and-ride facility in Illinois ($1.25 million). Dust control mitigation for rural Arkansas ($3 million). The National Packard Museum in Ohio ($2.75 million). A historical trolley project in Washington ($200,000). And on and on and on.

If Carl Sandburg had lived to see this massive avalanche of bacon greasing its way down Capitol Hill, he would have named Congress, not Chicago, the hog butcher for the world. Or perhaps he would simply have seconded P.J. O'Rourke's timeless observation in ''Parliament of Whores": ''Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

Arizona Senator John McCain, who voted no, called the bill a ''monstrosity" and wondered whether it will ever be possible to restore fiscal sanity to Congress. If ''the combination of war, record deficits, and the largest public debt in the country's history" can't break lawmakers' addiction to spending, he asked, what can? ''It would seem that this Congress can weather any storm thrown at it, as long as we have our pork life-saver to cling to."

McCain is a Republican, and it might surprise younger readers to learn that spending discipline was once a basic Republican principle. Hard to believe in this era of bloated Republican budgets and the biggest-spending presidential administration in 40 years -- but true. Once upon a time Republicans actually described themselves with pride as fiscal conservatives. That was one of the reasons they opposed the promiscuous use of pork-barrel earmarks, which are typically used to bypass legislative standards, reward political favorites, and assert political control over state and local affairs.

For example, Ronald Reagan vetoed the 1987 highway bill because it included 121 earmarks and was $10 billion over the line he had drawn in the sand. ''I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair," he said. President Bush is a great admirer of Reagan's record in foreign affairs. Too bad he shows so little interest in following the Gipper's fiscal lead as well.

When Bush ran for president in 2000, he described his Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, as a reckless high-roller who would unbalance the budget. ''If the vice president gets elected," Bush said, ''the era of big government being over is over."

Five years later, what is over is the GOP reputation for fiscal sobriety. Republicans today are simply the other big-government party -- just as capable of squandering public funds, and just as eager to fill barrels with pork, as their fellow-spendthrifts across the aisle.

source
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 10:53 am
Yep.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 11:08 am
Goodfielder has mentioned Clinton, and his "cachet" in the world, or rather the cachet given the United States during his tenure. Personally, i didn't like the man, and never voted for him. I was already suspicious of him in 1992 from what i had seen in the news about him as Governor of Arkansas. I lived in Southern Illinois, and news from and about Arkansas was common, one of the three major network outlets from which we received the television signal was in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. I still don't think much of him.

During his two terms, the tax rate was much higher than now, but it was acceptable to the electorate at large. The budget deficit was eliminated and a surplus was created and maintained. That was fiscal responsibility. He inherited a mess in Somalia, and did his best to deal with an out-of-control situation being run and exacerbated by a Bush appointee who was acting on his own initiative in Somolia outside of the guidelines he had been given. He maintained the no-fly zones in Iraq, despite there being no U.N. resolution which authorized that action, but i considered it a reasonable policy. He acted in the Balkans after years of frustrating failures on the part of the European Union to sweep their own stoop, and when he acted, he lined up NATO support before hand. I considered that reasonable policy. He sold the American economy down the river in some respects, however, by cozying up to China, although the effect can't match what has happened in the last five years with the export of jobs. Given the revelations about Chinese contributions to Clinton, Gore and the DNC, his policy doesn't surprise me. I considered it a very bad policy.

Without doubt, his fiscal responsibility was his greatest contribution to the nation. The current administration has pissed it away as fast as they could write the checks and slash taxes for the wealthiest.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 06:29 pm
Sturgis wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
Clinton left you a budget surplus. Jeez even I know that.


He also left the base for what became our current budget difficulties due to his inept handling of Bin Laden when he had the chance and more than golden opportunity.


that is absolute nonsense.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 06:36 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Know what's funny? Even so the US is still the greatest country in the world.


no thanks to bush and no thanks to the people that let him and his crew run rampant without demanding one shred of responsibility for their actions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Republicans: determined to bust all budgets
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.86 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 10:07:07