“The Democrat-led Congress last year broke a promise to slash pork spending and doled out $17.2 billion for pet projects, a 30% increase over the previous year’s $13.2 billion expenditure, according to the Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 2008 “Pig Book.” Congress stuffed 11,610 projects into fiscal 2008 spending bills, the second-highest total ever and more than triple the number of projects in fiscal 2007.” — Washington Times, Carpe Diem has more.
Yeah, those Democrats are big spenders. But then, so are Republicans. Too bad there isn’t an alternative to both of them.
Actually…if you read the article in full, there is a clear difference between the politicians.
Here is the record on pork:
One significant reason to vote for McCain, IMHO.
You’re straining at gnats and swallowing camels. The Republicans are the main purveryors of the big overseas military spending that amounts to a full $1 trillion every year. Not that the Dem’s don’t spend, but why focus on Dem’s and ignore Republicans. It’s not clear that they are any better. The head of the Government Accounting Office called Bush’s perscription drug plan the single most irresponsible piece of legistlation since the 60’s. We are only a couple of decades away from being unable to fund a single thing except interest on our debt with federal tax revenues. Medicare was already underfunded and the biggest threat to our fiscal health, and Bush went and made it worse.
Now, here’s something you should know about earmarks. Earmarked spending doesn’t affect the defecit. Earmarked money is money that is already delegated to be spent. If it’s not spent via earmarks it just gets transferred to the executive branch where the President will spend in on whatever he deems necessary. It’s not going back to the treasury. Since Congress has the Constitutional authority to delegate spending it is better that they spend it via earmarks than that it is sent to this irresponsible President to use in some unaccountable way. Why praise John McCain for encouraging unconstitutional activity, especially when it does nothing to improve the nations fiscal health?
You sound sort of like you sooner support Republicanism than conservatism or liberterianism. You love to point to Democratic mistakes, but these mistakes are no different from Republicans. This is kind of a Sean Hannity mentality. You think I’m wrong? You seriously look like you stand more for being a Republican than for principle.
Yes, wars are expensive but they pale in comparison to social programs - and on that, Democrats are the clear winners.
Take the two social programs that are on the road to bankrupting this country: Medicare and social security. These are the sole creations of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and FDR’s “New Deal”.
In fact, nobody knows, or probably cares about, how much money Lyndon Johnsons Vietnam and FDR’s World War II costs…yet every economists will tell you how dangerously expensive Johnsons Medicare and FDR’s social-security programs are getting with each passing year.
One can make a stronger argument that Iraq, by temporarily eliminating revenue that could be used to expand social programs, does more to reduce government spending in the long run, especially when politicians like Obama and Clinton plan on increasing the role of government in healthcare.
Oh and, as far as Bush’s overall record, don’t believe the hype, its actually not that bad, see here and here.
Wars “pale” next to social programs? Take a look at the federal budget. I think federal revenues are around $2.5 trillion. To run just our overseas military operations we spend $1 trillion per year. This doesn’t count our stateside military operations. Most of that is not Iraq and Afghanistan, but simply our year in year out presence in countries throughout the world. Now, the word “pale” usually means something like “it fades to insignificance” in comparison to social programs. When you’re running at about 40% of the federal budget I don’t see how you can possibly pale next to any other program, or even collection of programs.
Of course Republican spending doesn’t stop there. Bush has always been huge on farm subsidies. No Child Left Behind. His energy program was another huge government give away (which thankfully failed in Congress). You link to some blogger that says the perscription drug plan isn’t so bad. That’s not the estimation of most of the people that I’ve heard. I’ll send you the link of an interview with the head of the GAO on 60 minutes. He has quite a different take. I’m sorry, but Republican Presidents consistently perform worse in terms of deficit spending, and this current President, with his Republican Congress has broken all the records. I think even Carter had a balanced budget. Clinton of course balanced the budget. But Bush wants to go to Mars and fix AIDS in Africa. How about his plan to fire up the printing presses for an “economic stimulus package”. You need to stop drinking the Republican cool aid and recognize that fiscal conservatism is dead in Washington. There is no party of fiscal conservatism.
Nobody cares about the cost of WWII or Vietnam? Well, maybe that’s the view of you Republicans, but conservatives and liberterians care. We talk about how wars are paid for with inflation because politicians don’t have the cojones to tax the citizens. Ron Paul calls it the “guns and butter” mentality. We were asked to tighten our belts in WWII, but in Vietnam they knew the war wasn’t popular enough to ask people to sacrifice, so they just inflated away. To save the dollar Paul Volker, the Fed Chairman, was forced to raise the Fed rate into double digits. The economy tanked, but he had to do it to salvage the dollar which had been inflated into oblivion. This is the fate we are faced with as Bush inflates away. Unfortunately it’s much worse now in my opinion for various reasons that I won’t get into.
Iraq is good for our fiscal health? We’re building military bases over there the size of the Vatican, and you see this as a long term gainer? This expanding empire of ours really is killing us. All empires fail the same way. They expand too far and inflate their currency. This is a road to disaster. And it’s a path that McCain promotes and will continue to promote.
Read about Bush’s latest budge proposal here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080312/bs_nm/usa_budget_dc_2
A few points:
1. My point on wars was that they are temporary, and their overall costs are significantly less than social programs that may be started at the time. This is why I compared Lyndon Johnsons Vietnam to his Medicare…and FDR’s WW II to Social-Security…speaking from a purely budgetary cost, the social programs are the 600 lb gorillas.
2. Alot of the costs associated with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are costs that would be incurred regardless of the war…like having a military and various bases overseas.
3. I believe that surpluses in the hands of ambitious Democrats is a recipe for disaster…especially in a time where healthcare is the political issue of the day. As Medicare has shown, nothing could eat away at our budget like a new social program involving healthcare. So deficits, along with the rising costs of medicare and social-security, binds the hands of future politicians - a much needed constraint, given our political climate. So in that sense, one can make an argument that Iraq may have saved us $$ in the long term (from a budget perspective only, of course).
4. The links above are from respected economists.
Btw, I just read the link and it states why the deficit is rising so much:
1. A slowing economy (one that would, btw, be slower if the fed did what you wanted it to do and raise interest rates)
2. Medicare and social security, which further reinforces my points above.
It seems you want to isolate two wars and specify that THOSE pale next to social programs. But I’ve been saying since the beginning of this thread that it makes no sense to focus on just those, but instead look at our ENTIRE overseas military operations, which are for the most part promoted and emphasized by Republicans. These run at the tune of $1 trillion per year. Nothing can make $1 trillion dollars pale in comparison.
Now, let’s notice how you’re shifting your argument when the facts come to light. This whole post of yours is how a “significant reason to vote for McCain” in your humble opinion is his aversion to pork barrel spending, etc. Now I’ve shown that McCain in avoiding earmarks has done nothing to reduce government spending, he’s subverted the Constitution, and further Republicans are at least as big of spenders as Democrats. Suddenly now deficit spending is a good thing, because it keeps money out of the hands of Democrats. Man, you’re better than this. It seems to me that you are more interested in defending Republicans than standing for principle. Why start by attacking big spending, then turn around and defend it when Republicans start looking worse than Democrats?
You need to realize that Republicans don’t represent you. This is what I am trying to help you see. You’re a small government guy like me. You want to believe you have a party that represents you in Washington, but there is none. Most people I know that support small government want to see Republicans elected, but until we start realizing that Republicans have absolutely no intention of shrinking government and getting it out of our lives we’re never going to make a difference. They don’t represent you, HP. They’re all big government.
BTW, I didn’t say I want the Fed to raise interest rates. I don’t believe central planning of prices works. The Fed’s artificially low rates have caused the mal-investment that has created the housing bubble. The Fed doesn’t know what the rate should be. Only the market does. I’m for getting rid of the Fed and allowing the market to determine rates.
Here is the growing cost of healthcare…in pictures. This, btw, is without the additional cost Democrats will add if their ambitious healthcare plans are incorporated. This also does not include the growing cost of Social Security…another exploding social program.
Granted, the Republican party, in a vacuum, is not a limited government party. But we don’t live in a vacuum…we live in a world with trade-offs and substitutions…and given that, Republicans, when you compare them to Democrats, continue to be, IMHO, the small government party. Look at the graph above…again.
So which is it now? Are deficits bad or good?
The graph looks pretty bad. But it was small government types that worked very hard to elect Bush and get him a Republican House and Senate. We did it. Remember that the Republican platform used to stand for getting rid of the Department of Education entirely. What did Bush and the Republicans do? They doubled the size of the Department of Education. What did Bush do about the coming Medicare crisis? He tacked on a prescription drug plan. But where’s the money going to come from? He won’t raise taxes. He won’t scale back benefits. Maybe a Democratic President created Medicare, but should we elect John McCain and hope he’d slow it down? If history is any guide he won’t do a single thing. Look for him to keep on with huge government. Bush has added Homeland Security, a huge, bloated bureaucracy that monitors your phone calls, tracks your browsing history, etc. What happened to Republicans standing for small government and individual liberties? It’s a lot of talk. Goldwater may have cared but those days are over. I for one will not carry water for them any more and try and pretend that they give a hoot about small government and individual freedom.
My point on deficits remains consistent: Long term deficits are bad…though short term deficits, specifically those that bind the hands of ambitious politicians, may assist in reducing the likelihood of long term deficits (making them not so bad, in comparison).
You keep ignoring my point: As bad as Republicans are, they are still better than Democrats. You berate McCain on Iraq, but ignore the healthcare proposals the Democrats are making? Take a look at the graph again…which of the two do you think would have a more long term affect on deficits? Iraq war or new healthcare social programs?
You criticize Bush on “the size of the Department of Education”, on “the coming Medicare crisis” and “Homeland Security”…all fair points, yet you fail to take into account that Democrats were even worse on all of the above! Democrats criticize Bush for not spending enough on education, for not increasing medicare even more, and for not funding homeland security enough. Oh and, in addition to the above, they want to increase taxes, create more social programs, and do nothing about social security…yet its Republicans that are the enemies of small government?
Seriously Jon, your arguments would be more persuasive if we didn’t have the clearly big government Democratic party as the alternative. In comparison, the GOP continues to be, with all its flaws, the small government choice.
I don’t know why you’d think that a short term defecit slows big spending Democrats. Why not just borrow more? Did huge deficits prevent Bush from turning on the printing presses with his economic stimulus package, an additional $100 billion in deficit spending? I don’t see that this matters.
I’m not really saying Democrats are better. I’m saying it’s not clear that they are worse. Look at this chart and explain how it is clear to you that one party is clearly better than the other:
http://www.iatse728.org/home/deficitgraph.htm
You can focus on one program over another, but the overall picture is important, and that is what the link I’ve provided shows. You shill for Republicans constantly over Democrats and I see this swooming over a 700 lb gross woman over a 750 lb gross woman. “Oh look” you say “she’s 50 lbs lighter. So wonderful. Get excited about her.” I can’t do it anymore. I’m not going to pretend I’m not disgusted by both of them.
I care more about long term budget deficits than any instantaneous, possibly temporary, increase in the deficit.
For example, say a Republican cuts taxes and temporarily increases the federal deficit…yet a Democrat raises taxes or - worse - creates a social program that with each passing generation adds more to the federal deficit, just not at the current moment…which is worst? Clearly the Democrats. It is precisely that reality that I am addressing.
You name me the two largest long term deficit problems…and I will show you two programs created by Democrats - and worse, current Democrat politicians are campaigning on increasing those programs, while the Republican on reducing it.
Be disgusted by both parties Jon…thats acceptable and to a large degree, I agree. My only disagreement with you is in trying to paint the Republican party as equal…or more ridiculous…as worse than the Democratic party. I just can’t swallow that ‘camel’.
Watch this. Walker claims Bush added $8 trillion on top of a $15 trillion dollar obligation with the Medicare perscription drug plan. He called it the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 60’s. Neither the mainstream Republicans or Democrats are doing anything to correct the looming fiscal disasters facing our country.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
So why stump for McCain from a fiscal perspective? The ship is sinking. You may have a point on longer term obligations. Arguably it is more expensive. But it amounts to the Titanic going down, and maybe Republicans have a teaspoon and they’re trying to get water out and Democrats are doing nothing. Like I said, I’m not defending Democrats. I’m just saying that really what’s the difference?
One serial killer kills 100 people and the other kills 102. You like to criticize the 102 killer and throw your support behind the 100 killer. Does it really matter?
All right, enough with my analogies.
One other thing. I think it was Nixon that got us going on HMO’s and all this government involvement in health care that has caused health care costs to rise and rise. Sure, the bills are paid directly by the people rather than via taxes, but the bottom line is it still makes us less wealthy. It’s not a free market system, so though it isn’t “government provided” it’s still a disaster and has resulted in the recent calls for government run health care. That’s a long term major expensive problem, though it doesn’t contribute to deficits.
Republicans have been very much in control in a sense going all the way back to 1994. We elect them to get government out of our lives. What have they done? Government has expanded like never before. You are content to say “Well, they’re better than the alternative.” But if you continue to support them, what will it mean? Huge, huge government. Arguably it won’t grow at quite the rate the Democrats would grow it. But does it really matter in the end? We absolutely need to shrink the federal government. The Republicans won’t do it. We sent them to do it, they couldn’t. Focus your energies on finding people that will, not supporting someone that really stays on the same path as the Democrats.
I had a conversation with a die-hard Republican a couple of weeks ago who dismissed the 200 billion dollar price tag of a fighter jet as “small potatoes” in the context of the overall budget. If that’s correct, than what should be call 17 billion in earmarks? Chump change?
Jon is right. Complaining about earmarks while defending military spending is straining at gnats.
Jon,
Again…every example you give about Republicans, I could come back and say, ‘why yes, but you forget that Democrats wanted more of that‘. Democrats wanted to expand the prescription drug plan more, Democrats wanted to fund NCLB more, Democrats wanted a bigger homeland security. In addition, unlike Republicans, Democrats also wanted to raise taxes, they also want (present tense) to expand these very expensive social programs more.
Maybe your problem is in thinking that the GOP ever was a small government party. I don’t think it ever was (well, maybe with Reagan, but even there it gets ify). It was always considered the small government party with respect to the Democrats, and I think that continues to be the case.
LaurenceB,
How about complaining about military spending while defending social programs like Medicare and social security?
Jon’s argument is tantamount to a liberal who is fed up with the Democrats continued support of the war, and, because of such, votes for McCain. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
OK. You’re both right.