Mr. Bush, who had threatened to veto wasteful spending bills, chose instead to cave in. He did so despite the fact that in addition to a record number of earmarks the transportation bill came with a price tag that he had once called unacceptable. The bill has a declared cost of $286 billion over five years plus a concealed cost of a further $9 billion; Mr. Bush had earlier drawn a line in the sand at $256 billion, then drawn another line at $284 billion. Asked to explain the president's capitulation, a White House spokesman pleaded that at least this law would be less costly than the 2003 Medicare reform. This is a classic case of defining deviancy down.The nation is at war. It faces large expenses for homeland security. It is about to go through a demographic transition that will strain important entitlement programs. How can this president -- an allegedly conservative president -- believe that the federal government should spend money on the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center in Louisiana? Or on the Henry Ford Museum in Michigan? The bill Mr. Bush has signed devotes more than $24 billion to such earmarked projects, continuing a trend in which the use of earmarks has spread steadily each year. Remember, Republicans control the Senate and the House as well as the White House. So somebody remind us: Which is the party of big government?
I love the line, "an allegedly conservative president." Myself, I'm a fiscal conservative, a strong believer in balanced budgets. What's interesting is that the parties have flipped in this country, with the Republicans now the huge budget deficit party (see Reagan and Bush on the national level, and former Republican Governor Jim Gilmore here in Virginia), with the Democrats the budget SURPLUS party (see Clinton on the national level, Mark Warner here in Virginia).
Interestingly, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation, government spending per household in 2003 reached its highest level since World War II, with the federal budget expanding $353 billion between 1998 and 2003. Heritage also pointed out that "government is... growing significantly faster than it did in the 1990s. In fact, the 7.6 percent average annual growth over the past two years [2002 and 2003] more than doubled the 3.4 percent average annual growth from 1993 to 2001." In other words, Bush is increasing spending at twice the rate of Bill Clinton, with "fiscal responsibility [now] a distant memory."
How on earth did it happen that the Republicans became the "big government" party? That's a long story, but the short and obvious ansser is that it's simple politically expediency shower one's district with politically popular money and projects of various kinds. But what about the country as a whole, especially in the middle of a war, not to mention an aging baby boom cohort getting close to retirement? Shouldn't we be saving up a nest-egg right now instead of going on a spending spree, as the Republicans are currently doing? As the libertarian Cato Institute points out, in an article entitled "Republicans Become the Party of Big Government:"
The culture of spending seems to have prevailed over the current Republican Party. In his initial budget plan in 2001, President Bush noted: "For too long, politics in Washington has been divided between those who wanted Big Government without regard to cost and those who wanted Small Government without regard to need." Three years later it is clear that Bush has embraced Big Government without regard to cost.
For once, I agree with the Cato Institute. Maybe not for the last time, either, if things keep going like they're going with the "Big Government Conservatives" in charge. Anywya, let's just make sure we keep Virginia's fiscal house in order by electing Tim Kaine, Mark Warner's able lieutenant, as Governor this November. The choice is clear: Tim Kaine, the balanced budget Democrat vs. Jerry Kilgore, the "big government 'conservative'." This is not a difficult decision to make.