NBC's Andrea Mitchell, in Today Show Report, Revels in Republican Revolt on Budget

[governsleastgovernsbest]

When they're the bearer of bad news, there's often an urge to shoot the messenger. That's particularly true when the bearer is a card-carrying member of the liberal media, taunting the Republicans and reveling in their internal turmoil.

Yet sometimes that bad news bears heeding.

That is exactly the dilemma posed by NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell's just-concluded Today Show segment on the growing revolt in conservative Republican ranks over out-of-control spending in President Bush's budgets.

Mitchell is the wife of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. She began by reporting on a supposedly secret (though obviously not to her) meeting held last week among 40 conservative Republican congressman, concerned about the big-spending budget.

She interviewed three people: Republican Indiana Congressman Mike Spence, David Walker, head of the GAO (General Accounting Office ), and Stephen Moore, head of the supply-side oriented Club for Growth and a contributing editor of National Review.

All expressed serious concern about the free spending in the Bush budgets.

Mitchell gleefully heaped fuel on the fire, using on-screen graphics to project how the deficit could grow into the trillions over the next decade.

One thing that Mitchell emphasized as a problem, that the interviewees, particularly Pence and Moore, did not cite, was the Bush tax cuts. No discussion at all of the stimulative effect of tax cuts that can (and in the case of the Reagan tax cuts did) result in increased tax revenue collections.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

It's a bitter pill to swallow when the doctor is an unsympathetic figure like Andrea Mitchell.

But conservatives need to take heed. There is a serious problem with spending getting out of control, and government growing way beyond the vision of the Founding Fathers and those seeking to keep their vision alive today.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Today Show budget-busting ping.

[goldstategop]

Its the discretionary spending that has so many up in arms. We're not talking about national security here. We could cut this discretionary spending and no one would miss it.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

We could cut this discretionary spending and no one would miss it.

Agreed. One of my favorite comments on big government programs was that from former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm [insert southern drawl]:

"I wouldn't want the government they have in Washington, even if we could get it for free."

[Puppage]

We could cut this discretionary spending and no one would miss it.

T he "Gimmees" would.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I shouldn't get a chuckle out of your tag line, but I do. Does that make me a bad person?

[MEG33]

John McCain lists some of the Pork on his site.The Congress put this in and Bush needs to say no more!Write your Congressman,your Senators!

[FreedomPoster]

>>>There is a serious problem with spending getting out of control, and government growing way beyond the vision of the Founding Fathers . . .

We're *way* past that stage. At this point, I'd settle for cutting back to the spending levels of FDR.

[Puppage]

LOL.

I hope not, 'cause what would that make ME?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Sad but true. Who would have imagined that getting back to a government the size it was under FDR would represent progress?

[goldstategop]

It would be progress. Even FDR didn't have half the programs we have today. And most of them were set up specifically to counter the Depression and have outlived their usefulness.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Could it be . . . Satan?

[FreedomPoster]

>>And most of them were set up specifically to counter the Depression and have outlived their usefulness.

Come now! The Rural Electrification Administration continues to do vital, important, nay, *crucial* work.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

most of them were set up specifically to counter the Depression and have outlived their usefulness.

I recently read an analysis demonstrating that the FDR New Deal programs designed to combat the Depression actually prolonged it. The variety of new excise and other taxes he created fell heavily on the middle and lower classes and killed demand.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Rural Electrification Administration continues to do vital, important, nay, *crucial* work.

Helping to light the homes and lives of earnest toilers in the far-flung regions of Westchester County, NY!

[goldstategop]

Exactly my point. It did an important mission in the 30s but 99% of Rural America today has electric hookup and running water. It should have been winded up a long time ago.

[FreedomPoster]

Point of interest - I note that the REA is now the Rural Utilities Service, part of USDA. And their web page doesn't appear to admit to their budget.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

"Old government programs never die, they just change their names."

[FreedomPoster]

I bet it's more like 99.9% or 99.95%. And the ones that don't have it are quite likely to be proud to be "off the grid" with solar cells and a battery room.

[goldstategop]

Yes at the time though people felt they helped Americans to get on their feet. In those days government programs helped people to find jobs and build the country's infrastructure. No wonder Americans loved the "New Deal." When it went beyond those few objectives where there was a consensus on government's role in the economy, Americans rebelled. The Democrats today don't want to recreate the New Deal, they want to go beyond LBJ's "Great Society" and socialize what's left of the economy.

[Arrowhead1952]

"I wouldn't want the government they have in Washington, even if we could get it for free."

I do miss former Senator Phil Gramm. He was one of the last officials with a "brain" that worked for the people. What many people don't remember about him is that he was a democrat, and then ran as a Republican.

He didn't do like jump'in Jim Jeffords, and change parties AFTER being elected.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Thanks for reminding us of Gramm's honorable move. He actually resigned from Congress as a Democrat, then ran for election as a Republican.

He ran an awful presidential campaign, but was a man of intellect and principle in the Senate.

[smiley]

Never cared for Andrea Mitchell....always reminded me of a "cat" waiting in the shadows waiting to pounce on unsuspecting prey......

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Andrea was definitely in her glory this morning, reveling in the Republicans' agony. Not a pretty sight.

[q_an_a]

"using on-screen graphics to project how the deficit could grow." One of the rules of budgeting requires that the 87 billion spent on the military,Afganistan and Iraq, this year, MUST be added for 10 more years.

[Cardini]

Personally I have had it with GWB. I think an elected officials job is to protect the borders and the GNP and that is all. Other than that their only job is to cut, cut, cut! Cut spending, cut taxes, cut programs.

GWB is the most big spending President we have ever had. And he has proved that the Constitution / Bill of Rights are hindrances that have to be destroyed at all cost.

No matter what, he has lost my vote.

[randita]

Did Andrea say anthing about Dean's opinion that her husband should be fired?

[FreedomPoster]

The only reason I'm still on board is that I think Iraq has the long-term potential to be a brilliant move, geo-politically. I'm really concerned on the domestic side, but warring on radical Islam and it's enablers is more important right now.

But if he signs an AWB renewal, all bets are off, and I'm voting a protest Libertarian candidate. As will a significant number of gun owners.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I'm also disappointed with W's big spending. But obviously Kerry or another Dem clone would be even worse. Do you intend to vote for a third-party candidate?

Let's not forget the lesson of 2000, when ideologically "pure" leftists voted for Nader, and, by throwing Florida to W, elected him President. Would you want the same thing to happen this time, resulting in a Pres. Kerry?

[an amused spectator]

The variety of new excise and other taxes he created fell heavily on the middle and lower classes and killed demand.

Good point. A lot of people don't remember that the the rape of the average citizen's paycheck through income tax withholding didn't begin until after 1940:

"The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945."

[FreedomPoster]

That's a very interesting point. Any specifics or links on that? I'd love to have some back up to throw at Libs on that point.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Heheh. Ol' Andrea forgot to mention that!

[SquirrelKing]

Mitchell is the wife of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Hm. I didn't know that.

[an amused spectator]

Andrea was definitely in her glory this morning, reveling in the Republicans' agony. Not a pretty sight.

Did you see that little metrosexual b*tch Matt Lauer trying to give it to Condoleezza Rice? What a freaking little jerk.

Was curious if they spent any time on the Saddam bribes to Chirac. Prolly not, if "The So Yesterday Show" was true to form.

[IncPen]

One thing I wish we'd hear (but never will) is a repudiation of Clinton's 'surplus' fiction

This fiction was talked about in grave and serious tones for years, as if it was some sort of given, as if it was a truism

I've seen trial balloons from the pro-Clinton camp in recent months, trying to jump 'surplus' up the flagpole, as in "Bush squandered the surplus", probably to give Hillary! a talking point

Unfortunately the 'surplus' was any other Clinton lie: "I did not have surplus with that economy"

[governsleastgovernsbest]

No mention of the Saddam bribes to Chirac & Co.

I thought Condi performed very well, with the exception of her response to the question as to why Pres. Bush wouldn't want a tough, independent investigation of the intelligence failures, where she didn't seem as confident.

By the way, there seems to be a consensus that Condi is pro-choice. Does anyone know if that is a documented fact?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Answering my own question as to whether Condi Rice's pro-choice views are a documented fact, have a look at this Weekly Standard article:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/059budmh.asp?pg=2

It contains the following paragraph:

"In 1999, after stepping down as provost at Stanford to work for Bush's campaign, she told the San Francisco Chronicle that despite her devout Presbyterian background, she is a "pro-choice evangelical," and that "there's a lot of room in the middle [on abortion]. . . . I don't think Americans think abortion is something you do lightly."

"Later that year, she told National Review's Jay Nordlinger that she is "mildly pro-choice," and more generally, an "all-over-the-map Republican" whose views are "hard to typecast.""

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Yes, Mitchell is indeed married to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Here's a link to her official NBC bio, which mentions it in the very last sentence:

http://www.msnbc.com/onair/bios/A_mitchell.asp

[Ditter]

I like your nic as well as your tag line. I also like the tag line that says (I may not agree with your bumpersticker but I agree with your right to stick it) I don't remember who uses that one but its good too.

[section9]

Look, Condi and others are going to be somewhat on the defensive until it looks like Kerry is a shoo-in and Bush decides to go on the offensive. Right now, Republicans and Conservatives are bitching because they are familiar with Bush and have some disappointments. Bush will outline the differences between him and Kerry and all will become clear. Andrea Mitchell will not remain gleeful for long.

All Condi was saying is that we shouldn't declare what kind of investigation of intelligence matters will take place until the final report of the Irag Survey Group is in, and I believe that to be an intellectually defensive proposition.

Condi and Bush are not against an investigation. Why? Any investigation would expose mismanagement and blundering at the C.I.A., the agency which tried to hurt Bush and Rice last summer during the Joe Wilson/Niger boomlet. Bush has a long memory. The time will come when George Tenet's mismanagement will be used against him, and he will be purged.

It will be the "independent commission" that will recommend that he go. No two people will be more pleased to see Tenet go that Bush and Condi.

As to abortion, Condi has described herself as "reluctantly" pro-choice. However, she's a believer in restrictions on abortions (such as parental consent) and, if I had to hazard a guess, I would probably suspect that she's a state's rights person on this.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Lots of good info and insights in your post. Thanks.

[MEG33]

Sen,Roberts was adament that they are investigating intelligence on the Intelligence committee.This is the one where the dems memo about pushing for an independent investigation that is timed for the election period push,no matter how their investigation goes.

These calls for an independent investigation are so the officials can spend all their time providing paperwork and testifying,day to day critiques in the press during the campaign.The dems want an investigation of the administration,how it USED the intelligence.

[roses of sharon]

The 9/11 panel leaks and sends its leftists out to the press to do interviews. They berated the witnessess before their panel, about what they should have know, had questions totally for the evening news sound-bites. Like, "I am only going to take the sub-way from now on".

Very silly and un-serious.

Their goal, as with most Dems, to blame Bush, not Osama.

[q_an_a]

I belive that you can do a search on this site and find this data. Look in the business or politics for last five days. One of those stories has the 87 billion dollar detail.

[CIB-173RDABN]

I think we can all agree by now, that President Bush often "outwits" his opponents. For years it has been the Republican trying to "control" the Democrats on spending, and what did it get us, nothing.

By appearing to be in favor of every spending project that comes down the road, the Democrats see an opportunity to bash Bush, with his out of control spending.

Once the Democrats come on board to get spending under control, what is to prevent President Bush from saying, you know you are right. We do need to get spending uncontrol and begins vetoing spending bills.

What could the Democrats say then, but no we really didn't mean it (and they don't by the way).

I will continue to support President Bush until I have a real reason not to, this is not it.

[SquirrelKing]

Thanks for the link. She looks a bit like Bawbwa Wawters.

[an amused spectator]

Once the Democrats come on board to get spending under control, what is to prevent President Bush from saying, you know you are right. We do need to get spending uncontrol and begins vetoing spending bills.

Great point. Bush has got a knack for gettng right to the heart of the matter.

airborne bump :-)

[LongsforReagan]

Could Kerry spend more than W? Is that even possible?

[MamaLucci]

Richard Ben-Veniste was the first clue.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Bush's deficits are bigger than most of Carter's budgets.