As the esteemed philosopher Flavor Flav once said, "Don't believe the hype." Despite rolling out Dick Cheney on Sunday to tout a return to fiscal discipline, and announcing the elimination of scores of programs, the administration's budget is bigger than ever. Janet Hook of the Los Angeles Times points out: "Bush's $2.6-trillion budget for 2006, if approved by Congress, would be more than one-third bigger than the budget he inherited four years ago. It is a monument to how much Republicans' guiding fiscal philosophy has changed over the 10 years since the GOP 'Contract With America' called for a balanced budget and abolition of entire Cabinet agencies."

Conservatism is dead.

Long live Conservatism!

1/3 by dollar amount or percentage?

Once a program has been established, it's very hard to get rid of it. Even with the White House and both houses of Congress it's hard to manage. Every program has advocates on both sides of the isle.

That said, it is extremely difficult to cut spending. And consequently, if taxes are going to be significantly reduced, the budget will be in the red. Given the choice between lower taxes and lower deficit, I'll take the tax cut every time. The government is going to overspend anyway, I might as well take whatever relief I can in the meantime.

Paleoconservatism is moreorless dead, and for good reason. Paleocons insist on living in a pre-WW2 world. In 60 years they have refused to update for the modern world and have because of it fallen by the wayside.

The deficit will be fixed, this is the same kind of worryworting that happened during the Reagan years.

In our nations history we have three factors that can generally justify a defecit. Those being economic recession, a national tragedy, or a foreign war.

The economy went into recession 6 months before Bush took office, 9/11 struck a year after he did, and since then we have had two foreign wars.

I agree that true conservatism is all but dead to the extent that it's all about the politics now and little to do with the political philosophies.

In political principal, Kerry and Bush were probably interchangeable but Kerry was (and is) such an obnoxious elitist a-hole and a bit too liberal for your average American.

Life has gotten so slick now that we will never see another Ronald Reagan again. At least one who emulates his politics and who can get elected.

I had a rough time in class last night. If anyone wants to read a recap of me being in the trenches click on my name.

The hysterically optimistic republicans and neocons don't care if the government spends well beyond its intake, because supposedly taxes are bad, and overspending is good, because its just free crap to help the economy. But when congress overspends, it is just another form of taxation, called inflation.

No consequences, according to their view. Every day in everyway things are getting better and better.

Brigid:

The correlation between deficit spending and inflation is complex. Other measures can be taken to counter inflation. Taxation is direct and immediate - what was yours is now Uncle Sam's.

Brad says: "I'd gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today." The hamburgler may have days where this is necessary, but if he does this everyday, he's in trouble.

Just do a thought experiment: let's get rid of taxation entirely, but have government spend the same amount of money. What effect will this have? The difference between this and the situation you are endorsing is one of degree, not of kind.

Your lips to Congress' ears, brigid. I really wish we had at least a few people who pulled out their pocket Constitution, thumbed through Article I, and said - "Nope - not on the list. Can't help you." (In fact, I just did it to recall which Article was correct.)

I am aware that this leaves a lot of room to grouse about Iraq. =) I am of the mind that the American people would be a lot more willing to bear the monetary costs of a war if it didn't come on top of the everyday costs of justifying oneself to the state in every way.

Just in NJ we have (or are planning to create) a higher gas tax, extra fees for common services, a tax on new tires, a tax on Internet commerce (being interstate, one of the few things Congress ought to be doing instead, if it's done at all) - here's a fun article about a scheme to dip into our 401(K) plans.

But - gasp! - stop spending so much darn money? Thoughtcrime! (Probably racist, too.)

First off, the line goes "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"; and it's Wimpy, not the Hamburgler.

Secondly, your thouht experiment is too extreme to be useful.

Finally, spending cuts are practically impossible. I would love for the Republicans to have the resolve to railroad them through, but I won't hold my breath. Therefore, balanced budget and tax cuts are an either/or. And given the choice, I would rather the government go into debt than take my hard-earned cash.

But debt implies "being indebted" -- and this loan doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from our pockets through inflation and lenders pockets (many of which are foriegn). Just apply the principle to a family -- would you recommend that they take out loan after loan for stupid crap (trip to Mars comes to mind). This is not only economically stupid, but it is incredibly dangerous and insecure.

Besides: one of the reasons spending cuts never happen, really, is because congress is content to spend on deficit. Its the same thing with credit card spending -- as long as people have the illusion they never have to pay it off, they go crazy.

I take Brad to be making a basic stand that tax cuts are preferrable to balanced budgets or spending cuts in the unfortunate situation where we are faced with an either/or choice. This is a reasonable stand to make when one thinks of one's own personal wealth and ability to provide for one's family. Taxes have a much more direct impact on us.

But I would have to say that national debt is more fearsome to me than heavy taxes because they are much more detrimental long-term than high tax rates given the current economic situation we are in. The reason I think this is the case is b/c the overwhelming chunk of our debt is owned by the Japanese, and more ominously, the Chinese. They fund us for nationalist economic reasons and are smart to do so; but given China's (in particular) rivalry with us it will be quite in their interest to at some point pull the rug out from under the American economy. There are a number of economists that are great at explaining this I can't do so concisely.

But the basic point (and I would love if the neocons understood this, but they think it is "isolationist") is that if our economy is supported by the self-interested largesse of the Chinese government than our economic, and thus, *national* security is extremely at risk.

Taxes may take money from my pocket but the national debt is taking it from my children's and grandchildren's and putting it in the hands of people who hate us.

That is the dark side of globalism and consumerism, but don't listen to me I am just an "isolationist."

Don't take it so hard, Brian, we may accidentally rehabilitate the term "isolationist" when all is said and done. Even this little neocon bug can see the need for a strong domestic manufacturing base.

As I understand the argument, in the long term the global labor market will start to even out as foreign workers organize. Then some manufacturing will again be cheaper domestically and the jobs and materials will start returning. (At least, that's the best I can do in two sentences.) Problem is that may take another century or so. Shorter term, there are powers in the world that much prefer to see the market even out in the other direction - a beggared (or conquered) United States, unable to pay what we're accustomed to.

A case of two-faced journalism, to my mind. When the republicans actually want to cut the budget, the press finds throngs to weep on camera. If they do not follow through they are branded as insincere demagogues and sloganeers.

Bush is a marginal conservative. If the media elite weren't so busy trying to knock him on all sides, they would see that he spends some of his time trying to "unite" (and only part of the time "dividing").

Although he presently occupies the leadership of the conservative side, he doesn't hold all the values of all conservatives. Meanwhile, it appears that rank-and-file conservatives (if any) are torn between a supporting a popular leader or working against him. So they might hold their nose and vote with their party, thinking that they are winning the war if not the skirmish.

But this is what comes when we allow journalism majors to provide a narrative of political events. When offered the opportunity to learn about the facts of any other subject, they chose to learn about how to filter facts through their lens or "voice" or look concerned telling us about it.

They could stand to open a dictionary to learn what compromise means---not every issue needs to be a compromise, and sometimes you give up dearly-held ground in compromise. And then they need to give thought to the tradeoffs that compromise brings.

We conservatives are understandably unhappy with Bush and the repubs in congress for growing the budget. But we shouldn't lose focus of the media's game in reporting it as some kind of abandonment of the CWA--which this reporter misrepresents as calling for a balanced budget, rather than promising to allow an up-or-down vote on a balanced budget amendment.

Some competant ana-lysis can show us that the CWA was temporary and fulfilled in its time: it was a promise to allow bills on some popular causes an up-or-down vote on the floor of congress during the next term. The press has too long confused the interest that conservatives had in some of the issues with what the "contract" promised. But, again, these are journalism majors.

Dan, we're conservatives--but let's be sensible. Your censor rejected my last post because of the first four letters in (what I would normally not hyphenate) "ana-lysis" (although it is kinda cool to break it into it's greek parts, in a geekish kind of way.) Seems your post censor is a little , or highly ratchetted.

I was a J-major, Sea King. But I don't take it personally, because you're spot-on as to the blind spots in journalism, and especially the "heads we win, tails you lose" attitude.

We don't often apply the skeptical inquiry bit on ourselves; it would be invaluable to do so. One of the first questions would be: "If the Contract With America was such a bad idea to begin with, why are you upset that the GOP is retreating from it?" We could then fail to hold our breath while waiting for a cogent answer.

Nightfly,

You were right not to take any offense. I don't apply that criticism across the board but only in an aggregate sense. I'm a generalist, so casting asparagus at journalists for not being more of a specialist, is a ground I'd need some caution.

But I guess you could translate it into what do we expect to be the average quality of output when a group, faced with the feast of fact in college, chose how to tell somebody about what somebody said the facts were.

I also like the "no-effect but dangerous" ana-lysis that is given to every plan the Repubs pose as if in veering from the liberal plan presents immediate pitfalls to be avoided. What it usally amounts to is discussing tradeoffs with costs only on one side and benefits only on the other.

You just watch. Your next newscast will contain the "useless but DANGEROUS!!" ana-lysis on something the the repubs are doing, because they "ana-lyze" every policy change in that light.

"'If the Contract With America was such a bad idea to begin with, why are you upset that the GOP is retreating from it?' We could then fail to hold our breath while waiting for a cogent answer."

That's right because one man's "retreat" is another man's "compromise", but to characterize it as such is to allow the repubs to be seen as doing something they like to decry them for not doing. I mean what do they think that "bi-partisanship" would look like, if part of it isn't repubs looking more like dems.

Bi-partisanship is when both parties work together to come to a conclusion they can both be happy with. It does not mean Republicans have to shit to the left, or Democrats have to shift to the Right. It means they work together to achieve something both of there viewpoints can be happy with.

Then bi-partisanship could be cutting the military budget. But then the repubs stand the chance of looking "softer" on the military and "abandoning" their previous insistence on a strong military.

Really, where can these two parties find something that they are both happy with unless it trades conservative goals for liberal ones--and vice versa?

"looking like" (my words) is not necessarily "shifting" (your take) The first is just an appearance of having changed an opinion or having abandoned goals. Shifting is an actual change.

Hook said that the current deal indicated a change in policy (from something that didn't represent policy anyway). I'm not the one imputing actual changes to what are perhaps momentary compromises (however disheartening to a conservative).

Sorry but I saw enough of "bi-partisanship" during Bush Sr's term. After days of democrats entreating the president, from the floor, to be fiscally responsible and pass their bill to reduce the deficit by raising taxes (among other things), the president signs what would be his political suicide note. It is interesting that the shrill screams of "liar" came most strongly from the left, immediately after Bush Sr. had been "responsible" per the supplications of the dems. His "responsibility" here was supposed to be displayed by not vetoing the bill in a knee-jerk fashion as he had done so many other bills with taxes in them. (About 100% of the bills passed onto Bush Sr.) But afterward, the media and the politcians on the left just stepped aside and let the attack dogs howl. And our dissatisfaction with Bush's compromise added fuel to the fire. But was mistaken for the same thing.

It seems to me that it is at least in the realm of possibility that Bush may be giving up the fiscal battle to focus energies on Social Security. Thinking, rather foolishly, that if he gives he keeps from cutting too much, he will have appeased the liberals.

But my other point was that Bush is no more a hardline conservative than I am. So Bush may represent another viewpoint within the conservative spectrum and nothing so much like a "change" at all.

But such possibilities do not interest the clique who are intent on forming our public narrative. They are too busy getting it wrong that Roe v. Wade "legalized" abortion.

Prove to me that the Reps and Dems can reach an agreement which 1) make the Dems happy and 2) do not make the conservatives look like they are abandoning either social and/or fiscal ground. I'll grant you that a single example might be possible, but I would wager that finding enough cases like that is problematic enough to disqualify it as the rule--or at least suggests that people clamor for bp more often than what actually fits the case.

With just words, you could as well define bi-partisan as the case that a law is neither A nor non-A. But that dog doesn't hunt.