[Rhodes22-list] Your Tax Dollars At Work

[brad haslett]

Rummy,

I've had problems with W's spending habits from the
get-go, this is nothing new.  The problem is that
EVERY politician from every stripe wants to fund their
own pet projects at the other guys expense.  Why don't
we do an entire review and eliminate some programs
wholesale, say farm subsidies, and cut all the others
by 10% across the board.  The Congress is responsible
for the spending, the President has the veto.  W, are
you listening?  You have the VETO, USE IT!!

Here is an article that sums up my feelings quite
nicely.  We'll revisit this later, I'm off to work to
pay my tax bill.

Brad

--------------------------

DELAYED SUCCESS 
By RYAN SAGER 

DID House Majority Leader Tom DeLay hear the rumor
about the educators who wanted to replace "failure" on
report cards with the sunnier "delayed success"? It
would explain his declaration Tuesday that the
Republican Party is winning an "ongoing victory"
against wasteful government spending. 

As President Bush prepares to spend his way out of the
post-Katrina political muck, there's more than a
little reason to snicker at DeLay's linguistic
gymnastics. 

Indeed, Katrina's aftermath may trigger a real split
between the big spenders who now control the GOP and
the small-government conservatives who consider
themselves its conscience. Republican dissidents are
launching an all-out assault on the White House and
GOP leaders in Congress over the Bush-era explosion in
spending. 

"It is inexcusable for the White House and Congress to
not even make the effort to find at least some offsets
to this new spending," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said
Friday, responding to Bush's speech in New Orleans the
night before, where the president pledged spending
that is expected to exceed $200 billion in one year —
more than the cost of the entire Iraq war and
reconstruction so far. 

"We're going to end up with the highest deficit,
probably, in the history of this country," Sen. John
McCain said. 

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a member of the Republican
Study Committee (a group of more than 100 GOP House
members committed to small government), took an even
harder line when I talked to him Thursday: "These are
difficult times, and there are difficult choices to
make, but that's what statesmen do," he said, blasting
Bush for a lack of "presidential leadership." 

"Ultimately, it's the Congress that controls the
purse," Flake said. "But it certainly would be made
easier if he vetoed a bill." 

When Newt Gingrich led the GOP takeover of Congress in
1994, his Contract With America railed against
"government that is too big, too intrusive, and too
easy with the public's money." Now conservatives like
Flake worry that the party's lost the mantle of small
government. 

In fact, it's a virtual certainty. Bush has midwived
the largest expansion of the federal government since
the Great Society. His No Child Left Behind law
doubled federal spending on education (to no
measurable good). His new Medicare benefits are
expected to cost some $1.2 trillion over 10 years. 

Congress has been no better. Look at
appropriations-bill earmarks — pork projects. When
Democrats last held Congress, there were some 4,000 of
these annually. Under the Republicans, it's
skyrocketed to 15,000 a year. And more than 80 percent
of the pork boom came on Bush's watch. 

It's shameful: Conservatives in Congress now compare
Bush — unfavorably — to Bill Clinton. Staffers point
out that when disaster triggered unanticipated
spending on Clinton's watch, that government-loving
liberal actually asked Americans to make some
tradeoffs. 

After the 1994 Los Angeles earthquake, Clinton asked
for more than $3 billion to offset the new costs. The
Democratic Congress gave it to him. 

After the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton asked
for more than $1 billion in cuts. The newly Republican
Congress insisted on more than $15 billion in offsets.
(Let's hear it for divided government!) 

Since taking office, Bush has yet to ask for a single
offset to disaster-related spending. 

The point of the debate among the Republicans isn't
about whether to spend the money needed to rebuild
after Katrina — that's a given. The question is
whether, even under the most extreme of circumstances,
they can make even the most minor of cuts to the size
of government. 

In a press conference Friday afternoon, Bush mentioned
for the first time the possibility of "cutting
unnecessary spending" as a way to pay for Katrina
cleanup. But he also said the effort will "cost
whatever it's going to cost"; his economic advisers
told people to prepare to watch the deficit swell. 

If Republicans can't cut now, they can't cut ever.
They'll be just what their critics claim: A party that
rode into office promising Americans more freedom and
lower taxes, but now simply uses its power to hold
onto power. 

Republican victory against big government, in other
words, may be delayed indefinitely. 


rsager at nypost.com


 


--- R22RumRunner at aol.com wrote:

> Brad,
> Perhaps you should read what you wrote. I think
> you'll understand why we're  
> just now beginning to bash W.
>  
> Rummy
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> www.rhodes22.org/list
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com