A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
November 17, 2005"Moderates are people amiably untroubled by Washington's single-minded devotion to rent-seeking"Most of the Republicans who were outraged by the Miers nomination are now back aboard. George F. Will today announces that he is not one of them. Will is angered by the continuing fiscal indiscipline of the party, and its drift towards its sectarian constiuents: "[The GOP] should particularly ponder the vote last week in Dover, Pa., where all eight members of the school board seeking reelection were defeated . . . Dover's insurrection occurred as Kansas's Board of Education, which is controlled by the kind of conservatives who make conservatism repulsive to temperate people, voted 6 to 4 to redefine science . . . [I]t is injurious, and unneighborly, when zealots try to compel public education to infuse theism into scientific education. The conservative coalition, which is coming unglued for many reasons, will rapidly disintegrate if limited-government conservatives become convinced that social conservatives are unwilling to concentrate their character-building and soul-saving energies on the private institutions that mediate between individuals and government, and instead try to conscript government into sectarian crusades.Strong stuff indeed. Not only is Will unhappy about what the GOP is doing, he's even more unhappy about what it isn't doing: cutting back government and its spending: Conservatives have won seven of 10 presidential elections, yet government waxes, with per-household federal spending more than $22,000 per year, the highest in inflation-adjusted terms since World War II. Federal spending -- including a 100 percent increase in education spending since 2001 -- has grown twice as fast under President Bush as under President Bill Clinton . . . In 1991, the 546 pork projects in the 13 appropriation bills cost $3.1 billion. In 2005, the 13,997 pork projects cost $27.3 billion, for things such as improving the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio (Packard, an automobile brand, died in 1958).On the pork front, incidentally, there's good news and better news. The good news is that the House has defunded (sort of) the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" - "a symbol of federal spending that's out of control," quoth John Cornyn - in Alaska. The better news is that most people haven't forgotten Senator Stevens' promise to resign if the bridge's funding was cut. Needless to say, Stevens has declined to follow through, saying that "[w]hile I am not happy with it, I think that under the circumstance it was the best we could expect because of the publicity that came with the Sunday supplements and whatever." You could say that he's resigned to it. The problem is, as Will points out, is that there really just doesn't seem to be a stomach left in Washington for getting spending (or even, the growth of spending - the GOP "cannot muster congressional majorities to cut the growth of Medicaid from 7.3 to 7 percent next year") under control, if it means cutting into mandatory spending. Or discretionary spending. Or really, just plain ol' bacon. Just as the Bridge was emblematic of the hollowness of Congress' desire to fix the budget, so the "removal" of the bridge is emblematic in another way: the money is still going north, just without earmarks. Bridge earmarks or not, it's still going north. Congress could have gotten serious about pork (it could, for example, have followed McCain's admonition that Congress "ought to do away with $24 billion worth, not just one bridge"), or it could have just swept it under the rug. Luckily for Stevens, that's a mighty big rug they have there. Posted by Simon at November 17, 2005 04:50 PMComments
I'm with Will. If you wanna say you're the party of fiscal discipline, gimme those credit cards back. I'm tired of the bills. Posted by: Tully at November 17, 2005 07:12 PMI'm with him to the extent that I share his frustration at the failure of Congress to deal with the budget, but I think his criticism of moderates somewhat too harsh. The moderates are trying to balance the expectations of society against the need to cut spending; while I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the way they're doing it, I don't like the attempt to paint them as being reckless or foolish. Posted by: Simon at November 17, 2005 10:22 PMOf course, part of the reason that the GOP has "won seven out of ten Presidential elections" (though I dispute that) is because most of them talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Instead of "tax and spend", it's "borrow and spend". Posted by: Blue Jean at November 17, 2005 10:22 PMBJ- LOL. Who sat in the comfy chair, Simon? A win's a win. Posted by: Tully at November 18, 2005 10:42 AMFrankly, I think this debate between social conservatives and fiscal conservaives is good for the party. For the social conservatives it will force them to see how much real AND political capital they're willing to spend to get their agenda. For the fiscal conservatives it will lead to a better political calculus of what alliances and concessions you need to get elected (i.e. "you can't cut taxes if you don't have the votes" or "talking 'moral values' to get one more vote for your tax cuts may come back to haunt you") Posted by: c3 at November 18, 2005 12:40 PMOh yeah, and I think this is a great opportunity for moderate Republicans BUT they're gonna have to come up with alternatives otherwise they'll sound just like the Democrats. (i.e. "OK, so what program do you want to cut? or do you want to raise taxes?") Posted by: c3 at November 18, 2005 12:42 PMBJ, I've got to hand it to you...you are right! Tax & Spend isn't really all that different from Borrow & Spend, is it? Actually, Borrow & Spend is probably a little worse...that interest piles up. Posted by: AR at November 18, 2005 03:46 PMSimon: LOL! Yes, we shall agree to disagree on that one, even if we disagree on the reasons. ;-) Tully, No, no, not the comfy chair! I'll agree to anything you say; just don't bring out the sofa cushions! ;-) Abel: You're right too! "Borrow and Spend" is worse, but unfortunately, both parties seem prone to it. It was like that with Carter and his Democratic congresses, with Reagan and his Democratic congresses, and it's true with W and his Republican congresses. Hmmm...maybe the only solution is a Democratic President like Clinton and a Republican Congress led by Gingrich and Dole, or perhaps a GOP President like Bush 41 and a Democratic Congress. Like hitching a high ox and a low ox together, they might keep each other honest. (Yes, Tully, that's another farm metaphor...;-) Posted by: Blue Jean at November 18, 2005 06:20 PMSimon - don't cheer so prematurely about bridge to nowhere. The money is not struck from the budget but rather redirected to other pork projects in Alaska. oh those sneaky republicans. Posted by: Marcus at November 20, 2005 02:43 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
