Tom DeLay this weekend abandoned his quest to regain his spot as the House majority leader. The federal budget in DeLay's first year as majority leader neared $2.2 trillion. It's now about $2.6 trillion. The last three year period when government grew at such an alarming rate, another Texan, Jim Wright, from another party, served as House majority leader. Conservatives helped drive Wright from Congress amidst ethics charges. Conservatives have fought to keep "the Hammer" as majority leader amidst ethics charges. Innocent until proven guilty, Tom DeLay deserves a fair hearing on legal charges that may prove dubious. On the charge of aiding and abetting the growth of big government, the verdict is in: DeLay is guilty. It is for that offense, working against the raison d'etre of the post-Goldwater Republican Party, that Republicans should have ousted Tom DeLay long before Democrats made the attempt.
Hmmmm....well, maybe, maybe not, Dan. It seems a little unrealistic to expect spending to stand still when we're in a war economy, and not just any war, but a war unlike any we've ever fought in our history. This will be the most expensive war - indeed, the most expensive venture of any kind - that the United States has ever had. Coupled with the costs of major storm damage that has made a virtual ghost town out of one of our major cities, the costs that have occurred are nothing that could have been planned for, let alone dodged, somehow. To expect otherwise under the circumstances is quite unforgiving, in my opinion.
Dan and Gary make good points. There was no attempt to cut back in other areas to make room for the increases. I, as a conservative, actually was going along with the increased spending thinking that it was a strategy to win a second term. I now think that the whole deal will blow up in the Republican's face as they have lost their presumed "small government" mantra. I hate big government anything! It never works!
P.S. Dan, got your call. Thanks and I will call you back between 10 am and noon. Chris
Gary, it's not the War on Terror, and its certainly NOT Katrina that account for the massive increases in spending. Sure, 9/11 has forced a marked increase in defense outlays, and natural disasters cause temporary upticks in spending. But the federal budget is up across the board, and you have only to look at two areas, transportation and the prescription drug plan, to realize Dan is right. When it comes to giving our money away to ensure their reelection, you truly can't tell these players apart without a program.
What about subsidies to corporations which increase the prices of good and services, pick winners in the economy, destroy free trade and make us look like hypocrites to the world? Removing (at least decreasing) farm subsidies, for instance, are not only good economics, but a moral imperative. Redudant grants for corporate research, Amtrak, overlaping environmental studies, etc. could be cut without the slightest effect on the war or New Orleans. Half of the New Orleans spending is listed as "economic development" which will be found in a few years to have made some people rich and done nothing for New Orleans.
No doubt Republicans have cashed-in on their success and will now pay for it at the ballot box.
Points taken, Thom, however, as one who has worked in the architectural/engineering field for nearly thirty years, I can tell you that spending in transportation is just part of life. Roads, bridges and highways have to be maintained constantly and new infrastructure has to added as changes in population distribution occur. Every time the suburbs expand in any city, the infrastructure to support it expands along with it. This is a given, whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House. Another part of that transportation pie is the airlines industry, which, as you know, took quite a hit from 9/11 and has never fully recovered from it. It is the one segment of the transportation industry most affected by the war on terror and, needless to say, we should expect costs in that area to increase, not decrease or plateau. To sponsor cutbacks in any of these vital infrastructure areas would be insane.
As for prescription drugs, to a degree, I'm with you. I see the situation we're in as being a result of decades of moving toward quasi-socialized medicine. So far, everything that has been done has increased the price of prescription drugs, not reduced them. I see a large part of this problem as being the pharmaceuticals industry itself, however, rather than big government. That industry has dramatically expanded in the last decade and, I for one, see a large part of that having to do with the proliferation of drugs that do nothing to cure and instead only control symptoms - while causing others that, in many cases are far worse than the malady being treated. I believe that government programs have given the pharmaceuticals manufacturers opportunities to use the system to their advantage and that physicians, as a result, have become reduced to be legalized drug pushers. The remedy? I don't know. There doesn't seem to be any effective way to fix this mess without throwing more money at the problem, as anyone who is employed to work on the problem has to be paid for their work.
David, I agree on the decreasing of farm subsidies. Most of that wealth is going to millionaire farmers and big agri-businesses, not to the ever shrinking owners of family farms. Agri-business should require no subsidies; it is a multi-billion dollar industry in no danger of collapsing without government intervention. While the Bush administration could certainly do something to curtail this, the blame for it goes to FDR, whose socialist programs made it all possible, in the first place and have served as the foundation for every farm welfare program since.
Amtrak deserves a quick death, once and for all. The fares it charges are ridiculously high, in order to support (partially support, that is - most of its budget is in tax dollars) and, as a consequence, few are using Amtrak when other, cheaper transportation fills the need for getting from point A to point B and will take you to exactly where you want to go, instead of confining you to set routes and destinations. There used to be Amtrak service, in the seventies, from Oklahoma City to just about anywhere in the country. That was terminated altogether, then revived years later and is now confined to a single route, serving Oklahoma City and Dallas. For crying out loud, anyone can drive to Dallas in about two and half or three hours and do so for a fraction of the cost of taking Amtrak's "Heartland Flyer!" As for the "scenic view" along the way, a great deal of it is also visible from I-35, which parallels the rail route.
Agreed that the money slated for the rebuilding of New Orleans should be invested in restoration, NOT renovation and expansion. The original idea was to get New Orleans back on its feet so as to make it a viable city again, not to create new projects that have nothing to do with that goal. Most of the money slated for rebuilding New Orleans is being squandered on projects that don't acheive the goal of restoring New Orleans' damaged infrastructure so its population (or that portion of it that wants to) can also be stored. This is the critical part of this mission; i.e., making New Orleans livable again, so that businesses will return and residents will be attracted back to the city by the prospect of new jobs. This all has to happen simultaneously, though, and that is the problem. In order for people to live there, New Orleans needs businesses and infrastructure. On the other hand, businesses need customers. Both have to exist at the same time.
It seems, Gary, we are rather close in our positions and far greater small government advocates than either Democrats or Republicans at this point. Needless to say I would be happier if you were making the budget rather than the current "budget hawks" in Congress.
I would like to add that the price of prescription drugs and their unsuitability can be laid squarely at the feet of the FDA. This is an organization which requires hundreds of millions of dollars be invested before anyone can use a potentially life-saving drug, even if they are dying anyway!!!! This keep all but the blockbuster cure-all's off the market and economists are showing does little to increase the safety of drugs. The "cure" is to end big brother's reign over our health and allow private organizations to do the safety and effectiveness testing.
Agreed on the FDA's role in this. Their initial charter was to protect the public from harm, but their track record, lately, shows they are DOING harm.
