Centerfield

It was that well-known Republican moderate, Tom DeLay, who declared that "after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared [federal spending] down pretty good."

Posted by: The Jaded JD at November 28, 2005 12:50 PM

Mathew, I agree that we've overspent. But what exactly do you mean by saying the conservatives overspending was "focused on a social agenda that a majority of the American people oppose"? What spending, in the large numbers that make a difference to the budget, has been on a conservative social agenda? I thought most of it was pork, myself? Or do you mean that a majority of American people oppose the Bush drug plan?

Posted by: PatHMV at November 28, 2005 12:55 PM

Pat,

What I meant to say, and maybe I could have articulated it better (bad sentence structure?), is that they are focused on social issues that please their base while at the same they are time over spending. I am not saying what they are over spending on, but you are right, it is pork.

Posted by: Mathew at November 28, 2005 01:03 PM

Here's an idea: hold Bush himself responsible, for going along to get along. IOW, for following the usual "let's pass this now because people want it, and not worry about how to pay for it" congressional mambo.

It's a failure of leadership that few if any in congress or the white house have the minimum guts required to tell the people that we need to make hard choices sometimes.

BTW, I agree with Pat. I don't see the connection between a socially conservative cultural agenda and Bush's spending policies. I don't like that social agenda, but I don't see it as a spending driver. I think the unwillingness to make hard choices under the guise of "being a uniter not a divider" is the cause. Bush was a C student, so it's not surprising that he's borderline innumerate. Bush doesn't have a "no free lunch" mindset because he simply has WAY too much faith that lunch will get paid for one way or another simply because we need to eat.

Posted by: bk at November 28, 2005 01:17 PM

zarquawi is a coward. he is and his followers are all cowards hiding behind women. zarquawi is his sister's sister. his politics are flawed. he is nothing but a stinking coward. his death will send him on his way to hell. die you coward.

Posted by: dana allen at November 28, 2005 01:17 PM

I would agree that Bush's spending habits aren't due to mollifying moderates in Congress. However, Bush is no fiscal conservative either.

The only true fiscal conservative in Congress is Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a libertarian Republican. Now that's a guy who would slash federal government spending the way it ought to be done by keeping within the powers and responsibilities granted to it in the U.S. Constitution. If you aren't willing to slash federal government spending by at least 50% - i.e., truly create a smaller federal government - then you ain't a fiscal conservative. And most of the moderate Republicans mentioned in the piece are actually fiscally liberal, and not even fiscally moderate.

Posted by: shay at November 28, 2005 01:20 PM

Let's make something crystal clear... I am not defending the spending habits of George W. Bush.

Posted by: Mathew at November 28, 2005 01:37 PM

Mathew, I think the point of the Millard Fillmore comic strip (which was the sole content of the Redstate post to which you refer) is that the President has used free spending of taxpayer money to buy off the moderate members of the party, who are more squishy on spending restraint than hard-core conservatives. The drug benefit plan was hardly something approved by fiscal or social conservatives in large number. The President did the same thing in coopting Senator McCain by signing the absolutely horrible "campaign finance reform" bill (which the President had promised to veto during the campaign).

First, note that this is not the same as "blaming" the moderates for the overspending, per se. The Fillmore comic is still clearly blaming the President for the spending. It is simply looking at WHY the President, a supposed staunch conservative Republican, agreed to all that spending. It suggests one reason. (Personally, I still think that part of the reason is that President Bush is far, far less "conservative" than most people think, when you look at what he has actually done and gotten passed into law or policy, rather than his rhetoric or support for proposals which have no real chance of passing, but that's an argument for another day.)

What is your response to Leon's post here, which he linked to in a comment responding to your post over there? It seems to be a pretty thorough showing that the most socially conservative members of Congress generally voted in favor of greater spending restraint, while the moderates voted for additional spending. It also notes that, o the issue he analyzes in particular, HR 4241, 100% of the Democrats opposed spending restraint, while only 7% of the Republicans did so.

Other than a conclusory statement that conservatives are obviously in control of the Congress, what is the basis for your claim that social conservatives are "responsible for overspending"? Can you point to any moderates who were holding the line calling for spending restraint? I'm not particularly trying to defend social conservatives here, but I'd like to see some more meat to your analysis.

Posted by: PatHMV at November 28, 2005 02:51 PM

Pat, if true, it's interesting that in congress the socially conservative members also lean towards fiscal conservatism.

Do you think this pattern replicates in the general populace? My guess is that to whatever extent it does, it occurs primarily at the higher income levels. I'm going to guess that blue collar and poor social conservatives think a prescription drug plan is a good idea. I wonder how socially conservative senior citizens feel about it, too.

Posted by: bk at November 28, 2005 03:28 PM

Although that may, or may not be, what Fillmore intended, I took the posting of this comic as another attempt, by certain Red State contributors, to ignore the fact that it is their Congress who are creating these spending bills. This isn't the first attempt by Leon to say that the moderates are to blame for over spending, but I suppose that context would have helped my argument. Although I agree with the Coburn amendment, I don't think that because social conservatives recently woke up and realized they were spending too much, accounts for years and years of creating the largest deficits ever. I am not trying to, nor do I wish to shift blame from the President, who IMO is more guilty of over-spending because he has the power to do something about it and hasn't; rather, my point is that some of the most Conservative members of Congress are just as much to blame, and it has been the moderates for the most part, that have acted in a fiscally conservative manner.

My response to Leon was:

I have great respect for Senator Coburn. I disagree with him on various social issues, but he is one of the few in the conservative movement that actually backs up the fiscal responsibility rhetoric that he campaigns on. He is a hero in regards to government spending in my book, and I support his efforts. I do not understand the reasoning of those who call themselves fiscally conservative, but opposed his amendment. However, I don't think one vote proves your case.

Is the leadership in the House and the Senate not socially conservative? Are they not responsible for submitting budgets to the President? Did they not expand the "Great Society" by passing the "Medicare Bill," or increase farm subsidies by passing the "Farm Bill," or produce more layers of government by creating the Department of Homeland Security or the Director of National Intelligence? Did they not pass a bloated transportation package, and did they not whine when the President didn't do their dirty work for them by using the veto, a fact he should be ashamed of.

I have admiration for people like Senator Coburn, Congressman Flake, Congressman Feeney, Senator Kyl, former Congressman Toomey (who as a moderate I supported against Senator Specter), and a few others who IMO are some that are right when it comes to spending issues. This is not a defense of all moderates in Congress, as I believe there are some just as guilty of bringing home the pork; however, social conservatives are running the country that is currently producing record deficits. The buck stops with them.

In response to the drug plan, I disagree. They all voted for it. Furthermore, it was the conservatives, excluding a handful, who pushed it through the House. If I remember correctly it was McCain, Collins, etc. who voted against it because it was too expensive among other reasons, including that it didn't allow the goverment to negotiate prescription drug costs.

More meat? That's fair, although again I am not claiming moderates are 100% blameless, and keep in mind it was a comment on someone else's post meant to spark further debate and not an "analysis," but what group of Senators opposed the Energy bill because it was too expensive? How about the Medicare bill, the transportation package, the Corporate tax cut package Bush signed before the election, the Farm bill? Who said we shouldn't have tax cuts without spending cuts? For the most part the same names appear... McCain, Collins, Chafee, Snowe, Lieberman, Shays, Simmons, etc.

In a sense Shay is right, none of them are "fiscally conservative," and all of them are partially guilty of padding their own coffers. I don't deny that; however, very few have been saying for a long time that spending is out of control and actually backed it up substantially. With the exception of the few names I mentioned above, none of those people have been the social conservatives who are running the show.

Posted by: Mathew at November 28, 2005 03:39 PM

And if you don't believe that the posting of that comic at Red State was meant to lay blame on the moderates, in regards to spending, while shifting blame from social conservatives, here is a comment to the post that I would like to share:

That comic is right on. That is why it has hit a nerve. The problem in the republican party are the old rockefeller blue blood republicans. The "moderates".... This has been true as long as I can remember, going back to the 60's. And nice try libertarians to hang this spending on social conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Posted by: Mathew at November 28, 2005 03:55 PM

Brian, I'm not sure about the breakdown over the drug plan itself. In general, though, yet again I think the problem is labels, not issues. When we focus on issues rather than labels it's so much easier to take the politics out of them. One of the comments in the Redstate thread I linked to said:

Conservatism isn't a buffet. You can't pick only the consequences of conservatism that appeal to you, and still claim to follow it as a framework for government and culture.

That's the wrong-headed essence of ideological thinking. The liberals at dkos think the same way; you must adhere to groupthink or you are not part of the group. For myself, I see no inherent connection between, for example, the Terri Schiavo tragedy and the federal budget deficit which would require them to be part of a complete meal, and I do not know the chef who decides what must come with my meal.

Back to the issue of drug benefits, I suspect opinions would be all over the place. Social conservatives generally are going to be against them, because a big hallmark of social conservatism is personal responsibility. It's not my (or government's) job to take care of you, it's your job to take care of you. Social conservatives who are near the libertarian end of the spectrum feel the same way about not just welfare but also public schools.

On the other hand, while Catholics tend to be pretty social conservative on most issues (abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage), the doctrine of the church is that communities have strong obligations to aid the poor, sick, and less fortunate. While the Church itself stays out of domestic economic policies, there are plenty of Catholics who believe (with ample support from Vatican pronouncements) that social welfare programs are a good way of meeting those obligations.

I also think higher income level does not reflect in voting behavior all that much. For every Rupert Murdoch, there is a George Soros. And some of the most hard-core social and fiscal conservatives I know are poor or middle-class blue collar, while I know plenty of well-off liberals.

Posted by: PatHMV at November 28, 2005 03:58 PM

For myself, I see no inherent connection between, for example, the Terri Schiavo tragedy and the federal budget deficit which would require them to be part of a complete meal, and I do not know the chef who decides what must come with my meal.

I disagree to an extent, although I get the overall point... The very fact that social issues have become the hallmark of the Republican Party has taken away from the importance of fiscal issues. A Republican these days is known as someone who is pro-life, anti-gay rights, etc. not pro-fiscal responsiblity, pro-defense, pro-free trade, etc. This shift in focus, regarding the GOP message, is a big reason in my view that Republican leadership is passing the spending bills that they are. Their focus is no longer fiscal restraint, but whether or not husbands get to make decisions about taking their wives off of life support. Fiscal restrain, free-trade, an adequate defense have lost out, in some part, because that focus has been shifted to issues that a very small part of the electorate care about: gay-marriage, abortion, etc. The fact that you can support the spending that is going on and still be considered a good Republican is a huge problem in my eyes. When John McCain, who is about as traditionally Republican as it gets in regards to spending and defense, gets labeled as a traitor because he doesn't support the "nuclear option," that is a sign of a party that has lost sight of the very values that are the reason for it's success in modern times.

Posted by: Mathew at November 28, 2005 04:22 PM

Mathew,

The final vote on the Medicare bill does not necessarily reflect who was for or against the prescription drug plan. The Democrats were concerned that it did not provide enough money, and that it went to far toward privatizing Medicare. Taking from the AFL-CIO 2003 Senate scorecard [pdf warning], we see that the Democrats offered an amendment (item 7 in the scorecard) to expand the cost of the bill by changing the definition of out-of-pocket costs which the recipient would have to pay before the coverage kicked in. The Democrats voted 42-3 in favor of the expansion, the Republicans 49-0 against it. The final procedural hurdle to the prescription drug plan (item 13) passed with Republicans voting 49-2 and Democrats voting 11-37. Again, the reasons the Democrats had for opposing it were NOT that it cost too much, but because it cost too little.

I'm not saying I support buying off votes with pork and other federal aid. But I do think that's what happened here. President Bush campaigned on a prescription drug plan in large part because there was a huge demand out there for one. The Democrats had been calling for one for years. If Bush hadn't offered one, commercial after commercial would have shown senior citizen Mary lying in bed because President Bush wouldn't pay 1% of the federal budget to buy the prescription drug she needs to be active and able to play with her grandchildren.

Mathew, you keep saying the social conservative leadership in Congress passed these. But that's not the issue raised in the Redstate post. Of course they and President Bush passed and signed them into law. The issue is not who, but why. Did the social conservatives pass these spending bills because they wanted them, or because they wanted to grease the legislative pipeline to make for easier passage of socially conservative bills? The pork, I'll give you. That was just the GOP behaving like entrenched politicians always behave (DeLay being our Dan Rostenkowsi, perhaps). But I don't think the pork was the biggest offender in the deficit fight.

If President Clinton had done this, it would be called triangulation.

Posted by: PatHMV at November 28, 2005 04:27 PM

Mathew, I think your last comment somewhat supports the Redstate post.

This shift in focus, regarding the GOP message, is a big reason in my view that Republican leadership is passing the spending bills that they are. Their focus is no longer fiscal restraint, but whether or not husbands get to make decisions about taking their wives off of life support.

And once the focus shifted, the Republicans did not want to use political capital to squash increases in federal spending. Therefore, they either allowed or, bowing to the inevitable, sponsored, the prescription drug bill, the pork, etc.

Why do politicians pick their battles? So that they don't waste political capital on the things they care less about. Congressional politics is a numbers game. You've got to add up to 51 or 60 votes on your side. It's also a game of swapping favors. Nobody is equally interested in all issues coming before the Congress. If I'm an industrial state Senator, I probably don't care about agricultural policy bills. So I'll let myself be persuaded by one of my agricultural state colleagues. And in return he'll take my advice on an industrial policy bill. Or I'll support the leadership on its agriculture policy, but only if I get that bridge I need in my district. But you can only do those favor swaps so many times before the well runs dry, and there is always a quid pro quo, whether stated or not. The ability to get Congressmen to do these favor swaps and vote your way on issues they do not personally care about that much is what I think of when using the phrase "political capital".

So when the leadership allows spending increases because fiscal restraint doesn't concern them enough to spend political capital fighting it, that is, in essence, buying off the moderates and liberals who want more spending. The GOP leadership was not PUSHING for more spending, they were, I think, simply allowing it to happen. Do I blame them for that? You bet. Do I think the reason they did it was to preserve their political capital and buy off some votes from moderates? Yep.

Posted by: PatHMV at November 28, 2005 04:41 PM

Uhh... I am not arguing that the Democrats are fiscally responsible, and I disagree with your analysis. The Democrats would have voted for this bill no matter what because they didn't want Bush to have the issue.

Mathew, you keep saying the social conservative leadership in Congress passed these. But that's not the issue raised in the Redstate post. Of course they and President Bush passed and signed them into law. The issue is not who, but why. Did the social conservatives pass these spending bills because they wanted them, or because they wanted to grease the legislative pipeline to make for easier passage of socially conservative bills?

I don't get why it matters... They passed them, period. If it is for the reasons you say, than that to me is just further evidence that the party's focus has shifted, and fiscal responsibility is getting the short end of the stick. Either way, they are to blame for the current spending situation, and to simply say we didn't mean it, isn't good enough for me. Besides, if that is the case, where is the conservative legislation you speak of? Social Security privatization? Tax reform? Medical savings accounts? What exactly is the social conservative agenda these days? What legislation have they passed that has been traditionally conservative? It seems to me that they spend more time on ridiculous late night legislative maneuvers like the Terry Schiavo matter, the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, etc., than proposing and promoting any broad range socially conservative legislative agenda.

Posted by: Mathew at November 28, 2005 04:45 PM

I meant to say that Democrats would have voted against the Medicare Bill, not for it...

Posted by: Mathew at November 28, 2005 04:47 PM

As for McCain, the brief search I did suggests that the people using the word traitor (by and large in the comments sections, not from any leading Republicans or even top level bloggers) to describe his vote on the nuclear option were using it in its general sense of betrayal, not in the sense of "one who commits treason." From Merriam-Webster: "1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty".

Many people, myself among them, supported Senate candidates in the last election largely because of a strong belief that President Bush's judicial nominees of the Scalia and Thomas variety should be confirmed by the Senate. Thus, a failure by Republican Senators to fight vociferously for confirmation votes for such nominees was seen by that group of Republicans as a betrayal of the trust they placed in the Republican-controlled Senate and the party leadership to whom they gave campaign contributions. Used in that sense (and the comments I saw tended to go out of their way to note Senator McCain's valiant and courageous service in the Vietnam war), the word is entirely correct, if strong.

Posted by: PatHMV at November 28, 2005 04:56 PM

Are moderate Republicans in charge of the House or the Senate?

The swing votes always have more influence than the rank & file. Always. The "Gang of 14" understands this principle very well.

Posted by: Tully at November 28, 2005 06:19 PM

As always, Tully needs so many fewer words to make the point I try to get across.

If moderates want be a political force of their own, they need to work together to use their center status to force change. The Gang of 14 worked a pretty decent, workable compromise with judicial appointments. Why didn't they do the same thing with the budget to demand more fiscal restraint?

Posted by: PatHMV at November 28, 2005 07:30 PM

Social conservatives generally are going to be against them, because a big hallmark of social conservatism is personal responsibility. It's not my (or government's) job to take care of you, it's your job to take care of you.

Hmm, that's an interesting supposition Pat. What you are describing is what I think of more as the classical integrated definiton of conservatism, the one that includes fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and all other brands, flavors, and mixes, under the umbrella of a coherent philosophical world view.

Now I tend to think of these "labels" (as you call them) as just loose models that help me understand general classes of things. And the general classes are of course always oversimplifications. But very loosely, there's a set called conservatives, and that set includes 2 overlapping subsets, the fiscals and the socials, who together make up most but perhaps not all conservatives.

Now suppose you buy this basic model, not as perfect , but as worthwhile for purposes of understanding various crude subdivisions among political groups. I think of group title (social, fiscal, libertarian) as a way of identifying likely priorities. In other words, suppose push comes to shove, then the socons tend to see a given issue as one where where culture is most important, fiscons as one where where cost is most important, libertarians as one where the net effect upon civil liberties is most important.

So on prez drugs, the fiscons think paying for the benefit is the most important thing. Socons? I wonder. My guess is they'll worry first about how a change will effect the culture, and think that helping old people pay for needed drugs is a cultural plus.

And even if you are right about the personal responsibility thing (not saying you aren't), I wonder whether socons complete the equation exactly as you suggest, IOW by saying "it's my job to take care of myself, so having the gov't mitigate the problem is wrong."

I doubt whether many socons think that seniors can't pay for medicine simply because they were irrresponsible. Most people, socons included, seem to acknowledge the problem of unanticipated negative developments in health costs, and the special burden they place on people in the later stages of life.

And I think that this all ties into a really basic schism among Americans about prudent planning, living a long life, and how to manage it. Some conservatives seem to buy the notion that proper prudence implies a very very high threshold of safety cushion in case of unplanned eventualities. Don't count on SS, save a large multiple above expected costs, in case you are off by a factor of 2 or more. In this view, the saving grace is inheritability.

Now, let's leave aside (what I think is) the fairly obvious point that many Americans don't have the kind of surplus income to set aside such amounts. (and yeah you could argue that many or most could do this with drastic lifestyle adjustments). I think many people, myself included, would rather not pile up huge set asides, and would rather a social program pool risk, so that the program provides a retirement lifetime baseline of enough for necessities. I really don't want to plan to set aside enough just in case I live to be 95 at 2 or 3 times the cost that the vast majority of educated guessers projects. I'd much rather buy in. And if I'm the lucky one that makes 100, then I'm a big winner, and if I die at 62, what do I care?

I don't think this view makes me irresponsible. It just makes me someone who doesn't want to live as a spartan "just in case," and sees our deomcracy as a good way to help people pool risk and balances today and tomorrow. I think there's a solid middle ground between the ant and the grasshopper.

Posted by: bk at November 28, 2005 08:54 PM

Well, the short conservative answer to that is, you can buy in if you want to, but if I don't share your opinion, why must I buy in, too? Buy all the annuities you want; leave me out of it.

To me, the response to that has nothing to do with the economics or traditional politics of it. I think social programs can be justified because they benefit the rest of society, not particularly because they benefit the individual. If there are a bunch of poor old people loose in society, whether they are responsible for their condition or not, that makes our neighborhoods and our country less pleasant to live in. Likewise with starving mothers and babies and the like for welfare. I don't want to live in a world that looks like Dorothea Lange photographs, so some social safety net is acceptable to me.

But I don't want to pay for your choices to live larger now and take a chance on the future. I have no obligation, morally or ethically, to support you. But I am willing to pay a bare minimum to keep grandmothers from eating cat food and getting basic medical care.

As for political labels and philosophy, your general categories certainly make sense from an intellectual standpoint. But the way they are used in current political discourse bears little resemblance to intellectual exploration. In fact, the labels are used to shut people out from further discussion. "Oh, he's a conservative, so of course he thinks that way; he's been brainwashed". Or "oh, he's just another wingnut liberal, I'll just insult him rather than discuss the issue."

It's really, really hard to get people to talk seriously about issues. Even here, which has a generally higher percentage of people who want to think seriously rather than reflexively about policy. Look how many more comments a post about a high-profile Dem/GOP/Lib/Con issue like Libby or Howard Dean or the Iraq war get compared to a post about health care policy, etc.

The labels, as used, mask similarities rather than heighten them. They confuse and obscure rather than enlighten. It's next to impossible, for example, to have a simple conversation about the Patriot Act and what exactly it really does, because of the labels and misinformation which have been thrown around. Using those labels as the first approach to framing issues gets people defensive and in partisan mind-sets right off the bat. I think they hinder strong, centrist-oriented debate on substantive issues.

Posted by: PatHMV at November 29, 2005 12:59 AM

I dunno Pat, I don't think it's the actual "labels," it's the way poor unenlightened thinkers use them. If you leave aside for a second the idea that that they are labels, you are free to notice that they are words that include substantial accuracy of information. I don't dislike adjectives, they're very useful things. The real problem is that for weak critical thinkers, the temptation is to dismiss something or someone as being 100% encompassed or understood simply because a label of some type has been successfully attached.

And a big part of this goes to good will, too. I don't think identifying someone as a liberal or as a conservative gives me a good reason to assume bad will. For far too many, joining one political team becomes an excuse for laziness of thought, as though the team you've joined gives you all the answers and 100% explains how to understand all the members of all the teams. It's a real problem, and I think it's best understood as laziness of thought, not a word usage problem.

But of course, if you live in the actual world of political discourse, you have to acknowledge that certain words can set people off. For example, from your vantage you probably acknowledge me as a liberal, at least relatively speaking. Yet one word that I find especially useful in describing goverment actions, budget problems, and ideas for reform is the word "entitlement." I don't view this word as a "code word" or a pejorative, I simply think of it as an accurate general term, since it describes government outlay programs that Americans qualify for simply by virtue of being part of a particular lcass of American, or even simply by being an American. But if I use it in mixed political company, I get dragged down the trollhole for being a rightwing zealot protector of the rich. *sigh.*

Well, the short conservative answer to that is, you can buy in if you want to, but if I don't share your opinion, why must I buy in, too? Buy all the annuities you want; leave me out of it.

A very fair point. Of course, there's a good counterpoint, which is this: conventions have value, especially in a democracy. You wouldn't say "if you want to drive on the right side of the road, go ahead, but leave me out it." Would you? So my answer is, if I could be sure that all the people who wanted to opt out of social security would do so successfully, and that this wasn't also going to be primarily taken advantage of by the most wealthy, leaving behind the most needy, I'd say "go ahead."

The problem with (to simplify) such a "two-pronged" system is that the SS system would still end up being burdened by unsuccessful opters out. So, not to be flip, but a really good answer to your "leave me out of it" is really "tough crap buddy, welcome to democracy. The people voted to tax everyone to provide a retirement baseline."

Really, I think a solid majority is on board with this as a generally sound idea, it's the actual details of how to do it that get everyone stuck. But let me add that I don't actually believe that a program with some flexibility of approach is a bad idea or unworkable, but it certainly will be difficult to craft and as the past year showed, even harder to sell.

Posted by: bk at November 29, 2005 09:23 AM

Again, the reasons the Democrats had for opposing it were NOT that it cost too much, but because it cost too little.

That's quite a simplification. A more nuanced explanation would be that the Democrats wanted to increase spending in some respects and reduce it in others. While the Democrats would have effectively reduced the deductible, they would have also reduced spending by allowing greater leverage for Medicare bargain with the pharmaceutical industry (even if there was no actual amendment brought on that issue, plenty of Democratic supporters outside of Congress have raised it). I have no figures of which would have had the greater aggregate cost effect, but to highlight one and ignore the other in order to paint your opponents as spendthrifts is highly disingenuous.

Posted by: Scott Smith at November 29, 2005 10:07 AM

I would point out that, in all fairness, it is generally the moderates who are refusing to cut even the growth of entitlement spending, let alone to actually cut entitlement spending. Moderates also seemed pretty pleased with the prescription drug expansion.

I do agree that it seems preposterous to "blame the moderates," particularly with so much pork abounding. Bush's refusal to wield a veto against stuff he considers unwise, or even unconstitutional, is an abdication of duty to some extent (although don't count me as one of these people who try to use the veto as a metric for Presidential effectiveness). But the reality, I think, is that the moderates in the House can be quite effective at demanding changes, controlling, as they do, the gap between tax-shy Republicans and cut-shy Dems.

The reality is that both sides need to dramatically confine the pork that is added into bills, and the difficulty is that it's hard to see how that will end if constituents refuse to punish elected officials who keep bringing home the bacon.

There's a furniture place near here - which I hate with a passion - which encourages people to buy suites "no money down, no money to pay until 2008; buy now, pay much, much later!" Such is the mentality of the country: between credit card debt and Federal pork, the mindset is "buy now pay later."

I can't help but wonder if the real solution to all this - the permanent campaign in the White House, the pork in Congress - is to simply have one hard-and-fast Constitutional amendment to fix it all, with one line of text: "no person elected to federal office may serve more than one consecutive term in the office to which they were elected."

Posted by: Simon at December 1, 2005 09:30 AM

I'm not a big fan of term limits, Simon. Yeah, maybe we would get rid of the Kennedys, but we'd also lose the Joe Liebermans and Phil Gramms. Being a good legislator is not easy. Balancing the harshly conflicting interests and desires and insanity of our diverse nation is not easy. I want some time for our leaders to grow into office and really learn how best to make a difference. Sure, many will abuse it. But short-timers with no need for reelection will just have a different set of biases that could keep them from acting in our interests. Instead of schlepping for reelection campaign contributions, they may instead schlep for a good job to start the day they leave office.

Posted by: PatHMV at December 1, 2005 03:38 PM

Regarding expenditures on the Medicare prescription drug coverage, does anyone know how much the Senate version would have cost if it had been adopted by the conference committee?

Posted by: Scott Smith at December 1, 2005 10:25 PM