Posted on 08/10/2005 12:37:37 PM PDT by Crackingham
There was a time when Republicans raged against wasteful federal spending and fought tenaciously to cut the size of government. Not any longer. The $286.5bn (£160bn) highways bill President George W. Bush will sign into law today epitomises the transformation of the party in Washington from an anti-government "insurgency" into a ruling majority unable to kick its addiction to spending.
To give Mr Bush his credit, he fought a rearguard action against his spendthrift allies in Congress, with some effect. But he did not follow through his threat to veto any bill that breached a $283.9bn spending limit. This was itself a big increase on the spending limit of $256bn he put forward a year earlier. Budget analysts estimate the true cost of the new law, which conceals some likely spending, may be as much as $11bn over the relaxed spending limit.
The quality of spending is also poor. The highways bill contains more pork than the state of Iowa. Members of Congress have earmarked money for almost 6,500 local projects, costing $24bn. These include such gems as $220m for a bridge to connect an island with a population of 50 people to the Alaskan mainland, $8.5m for seven local transport museums and $4m for a parking facility in Oak Lawn, Illinois.
Mr Bush's failure to stand by his veto threat is partly explained by his need to win support for the crunch vote on the Central America Free Trade Agreement. But it is of a piece with his own poor record on spending. After spending during his first term at a rate second only to Lyndon Johnson, Mr Bush promised to be much tougher in the second. But he has still not vetoed a single spending bill.
The highways bill is not the only fiscally irresponsible measure to win the president's approval in recent days. The energy bill, signed into law on Monday, contained lavish tax breaks for an oil industry which, with crude at a record price of more than $64 a barrel, is hardly short of funds or incentives to invest. Taken together, the highways bill, energy bill and other measures signed into law this year will add nearly $33bn to the deficit - 10 per cent of the expected deficit for the current fiscal year.
This project is called Gravina Access and is actually TWO bridges: from Revillla Island, to Pennock Island, to Gravina Island. Less than 14,000 people live in Ketchikan on Revilla Island. The population of Gravina is less than 50 and there are virtually no roads. There is an airport there that is served by a few-minute ferry ride.
The official "engineer's estimate" is actually $315 Million.
The population of the declining for several years.
Not quite. The project is called Gravina Access and is actually TWO BRIDGES from island to island to island. And the recently announced official estimated cost is $315 million having virtually doubled in a couple of years.
The entire area population is less than 14,000 and declining and in fact, the population of Gravia Island is less than 50. The local airport is on Gravina (not enough flat land on the Ketchikan side) but it has been served by a 5-minute ferry ride since it opened 30 years ago.
Did I mention the delining population?
oops
How about $223 million for a bridge linking Gravina Island to the town of Ketchikan, Alaska. Ketchikan has 8,000 residents and wants to avoid the current 7-minute ferry ride to the airport on the island.
"Darn but we need a Federal line item veto."
I'd be all for it, regardless of which party had the W.H. So few bills seek to lessen the size of government that it would be unlikely that a reduce-the-size-of-government bill would be vetoed. Almost every law passed by either party these days promotes bigger government. In the event we have a conservative president in the future, I'd sure like to see him have a chance to pick off some of the pork.
Just as important would be for Bill Frist and Denny Hastert to clean up their own houses by changing the rules to forbid omnibus bills. If they no longer were to lard up popular bills that legislators are reluctant to vote against by adding on big spending amendments (regularly unrelated to the original bill) and instead required an up or down vote on each piece of pork, this type of screw the taxpayer legislation would be drastically reduced.
Don't look for either reform. Both big parties like big spending.
Here's an idea: cut the federal gas tax, let states do their own, and fund their own highways. That way we avoid the feds trading our money around, in many cases giving most of it to other states.
When was that?
Hundreds of billions of dollars for a transportation bill? Doesn't our president know that there's a "war" on?
Bush signed a major increase to the Education budget and to the National Endowment for the Arts (at his wife's prompting). He also signed the massive farm bill widely believed to be the biggest pork barrel bill of all time.
Bush is a big spender. Period.
Clinton did not increase non-defense federal spending nearly as much as has Bush. It's pretty bad to long for the smaller federal budgets of Clinton.
I'm still waiting for a spending bill veto...and waiting...and waiting..
Why? You don't honestly think this 'conservative' President would ever use it do you? Bush has no idea what conservative fiscal policy looks like, much less agree with it.
But the blame can't be laid at the feet of Bush alone. I would like to thank each and every person that helped 'win back the Senate' by voting for these Republican 'spendthrifts'
This party loves to spend my money more than I do.
Well, yeah. When he signs porkbarrel bills like this transportation bill and the energy bills, when he signs bills like the Medicare Prescription Drug bill, when he signs off on over a hundred billion dollars in off budget spending for Iraq, then he damned sure deserves blame. Last time I read the Constitution the President had this power called a veto. President Bush obviously skimmed right over that part.
On the other hand the bridge will make it easier for the rest to leave.
Good infrastructure and a strong defense: a couple things taxes are meant for. Hard to think of many others, if any.
Republicans sure aren't what they used to be. But then, they never were.
I truly believe that the only reason why all those southern Democrats switched parties and became Republicans was that the found out that they could do so and still keep their big spending, big intrusive government ways. Unfortunately all too many of them wound up in positions of party leadership.
As a rule I agree with this statement.
Even so, as a small government type, I think roads are one of the few items I have little complaint about government spending.
This is why I say as a rule I agree with your first statement........but there are always exceptions to the rule...and in Delaware there are more than one.
I'd prefer that road spending were entirely left to the states. There would be better decisions as funds were allocated based on popular need, and not pork.
In Delaware I know of one $12mil project that is far more than just pork - it's the whole danged pig population. The citizens of Dover have repeatedly said no to tax dollars being used for these particular road/park/open space projects.......the Delaware DOT (and the rest of the DE gov)is so corrupt that $200mil is missing from the DOT alone, and no one is questioning it.
Yet the wife-beating junior Sinator of Delaware, with the assistance of the plagiarizing senior Sinator and the young-boy-liking lone Congresscritter are helping cover it up by stealing money from everyone in the country, to pay for something the people who live there DO NOT WANT by using YOUR money.
I no longer live in Delaware, but because of my husband's job, we still pay a heck of a lot of taxes to that godforsaken state.
Watching the GOP groupies on this thread try to rationalize away the bad behavior of their party would be entertaining if it wasn't so depressing.
Bush claims that the bill is fiscally responsible because it doesn't raise the federal gas tax. The boy just doesn't get it.
It was in 1993 and 1994 when the Republicans used government waste as a campaign tool to counter Clinton's liberalism.
Now that the Republicans control Congress and the White House, they are outdoing Clinton's liberal spending.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. US Constitution 10th Amendment X
...ooops....I don't know why I posted this. Nothing to see here, move along.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.