The road to nowhere

Do I sound disgruntled? I am also perplexed, left to focus on the inscrutability of such symbolism because the narrative thread of this presidency has become so hard to follow.

For example, Katrina isn't our only crisis. What's up with our borders, for instance? Why doesn't the president bring them under control? So far, the White House solution to the immigration crisis is to plot against border-control advocate Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), conjure up visions of alien amnesty, and now -- final-straw time -- appoint a novice to head up the crucial U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. "I will seek to work with those who are knowledgeable in this area, who know more than I do," 36-year-old Julie Myers told lawmakers at her Senate confirmation hearing last week.

It's not just that Myers' admitted inexperience fails to inspire confidence. It's not just that she is the latest in a string of what columnist Michelle Malkin has called "clueless cronies" appointed to Bush administration jobs in immigration and border security. (Myers is the niece of outgoing Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers, and she just married Secretary Chertoff's chief of staff, John F. Wood.) Downright scary is the symbolism of her appointment -- that President Bush considers immigration law enforcement a handy place to park a well-connected novice.

What's the president thinking? Maybe for the first time in his administration, I haven't a clue. What's really going on in the Middle East? I get the "staying" part of the "staying the course" in Iraq, but frankly the "course" could use some re-tooling to take into account the hard lessons learned (I wish) about fighting Islamic jihad.

And what's really going on with Israel? Having withdrawn from Gaza, Israel doesn't even get Washington lip service when it comes to its determination not to assist in Palestinian Authority elections that feature Hamas terrorists. Which begs the question: Whatever happened to George W. Bush's raison d'etre -- namely, that we oppose terror networks and the countries that support them?

Maybe the answer lies in what passes for tea leaves these days -- as in the fact that the new U.S. ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, who was most recently Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's right-hand man on Iraq, has "roots in the Arab world so deep," reports The Washington Post, "that his beloved greyhound is named Kisa -- for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, his first posting in the Arab world." Explains Mr. Jones about his appointment, "Maybe they wanted someone who could provide the Arab perspective, too." Which is weird, at best. Of all countries, Israel certainly knows the Arab point of view, historically delivered at gunpoint. But why, oh why, is the American ambassador concerned with presenting the Arab point of view? Is the Arab point of view the American point of view? And where does that leave us in the so-called war on terror?

Earlier this month, the shocking plan for the memorial to the heroes of Flight 93 was released -- a memorial in the shape of an Islamic crescent. The only elected official to call for a better plan to honor these brave Americans (who, having saved Washington from further destruction on 9/11, plunged to earth hearing Al Qaeda hijackers cry, "Allah is the greatest") was Tom Tancredo. The president and the rest of our leaders were, of course, silent. Maybe we don't expect much more of them anymore, which in itself is symbolic. But if the symbolism is clear, the leadership is not.

[[This really isn't that difficult a concept.]]

Then why do you have so much trouble grasping it ? The War on Terror is not something specific ? You ignore that the debt as a percentage of GDP is going to decrease, wouldn't that qualify as going down ? The deficit as a percentage of GDP is going to decrease, wouldn't that qualify as going down ?

You continue to prove my point over and over, you make rhetorical statements, but do not back it up with any substantive economic presentation. You don't seem to grasp the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending and their impact on federal spending. The president has no control over mandatory spending unless Congress presents him a bill to sign that changes the formula of promised payments. ALL entitlements are mandatory, as the costs of running those programs increases under the current formula, the federal government is REQUIRED to pay.

Except for welfare reform, the bulk of reductions in the 90s came from military and intelligence spending which are discretionary.

The War on Terror is not something specific ?

The goal is far from specific. Everybody knew exactly what the goal was in WWII: Defeat Germany and Japan. In the Cold War, it was to bring down the Soviet apparatus. How do we know when we've won the WOT? When there's no longer anyone alive who'll want to make a strike against us?

The administration has said that the WOT is likely to last a generation. Unless they're able to come up with a much shorter timetable, we won't be able to do this on credit.

You ignore that the debt as a percentage of GDP is going to decrease

So far as we've been promised. When that actually starts to happen, I'll reevaluate accordingly.

The president has no control over mandatory spending unless Congress presents him a bill to sign that changes the formula of promised payments.

You accuse me of ignoring points, but you keep glossing over the fact that his landmark proposals to Congress, that they've agreed to pass, have been full of increases in discretionary spending. If mandatory spending keeps going up, that's all the more reason not to keep expanding discretionary spending.

What's worse is that he never takes Congress to task for increasing it further on pork projects, when it's a simple enough thing for him to do. If he can't handle a no-brainer like that, what hope is there that he's serious when he says he intends to rein in spending?

[[If mandatory spending keeps going up, that's all the more reason not to keep expanding discretionary spending.]]

Here is where you are clueless, discretionary spending is military spending and intelligence spending, at least over 50% of it. So you advocate weakening the military to keep up with entitlement spending ? I hope ideologies like yours never get control of the White House. Weaken the military, isolationism, a recipe for disaster.

And unlike you, I am aware 9/11 created a geopolitical change, and that the War on Terror is necessary. Yes, it is a war unlike any war that has ever been fought, that does not mean you cower and withdraw into a shell. Maybe you would feel differently if someone in your family had been killed by terrorists.

If I had the power, I would unilaterally change entitlement programs. That is the only reasonable avenue to curtail spending. Without the albatross of entitlement programs, there would be no debt or deficit. But they have been entrenched by the left into our society for almost 70 years. It is why Congress is so spineless about pushing for the reforms Bush wants, it probably would cost them re-election. Societal attitudes have to be changed, but such changes occur slowly. Weakening the military is short-sighted and ignorant. Were discretionary spending a major part of the budget, as it once was, it would be an avenue for addressing debt and the deficit, it isn't, mandatory spending has overtaken and dwarfed discretionary spending.

Bush did not create the New Deal and Great Society programs that have put this country in the financial position it is in. He cannot change them on his own. Personal accounts was a good start, but some republicans in Congress backed down to pressure. Bush has not been perfect, that is for sure, but he has been a darn sight better than his father was or any democrat would be. I don't think you will ever be a big picture conservative. You just don't seem to be able to step outside your own narrow focus.

[[That's about as clueless a conclusion as you can come up with. He has been drastically expanding, not decreasing, nonmilitary discretionary spending. Whatever effect that has on the overall budget, it doesn't take things in the right direction, and it doesn't speak well for his commitment to turn things around. How hard is that for you to understand?]]

You need to take a break from your talking points rhetoric and provide substance. Let's take FY 2004 projections:

OMB projects that for FY 2004, government revenues will be $1.797 trillion.

The defense department will consume $409 billion. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other mandatory spending will amount to $1.259 trillion. Interest on the national debt will come to $165 billion. Those categories add up to $1.822 trillion. That leaves a budget deficit of $25 billion before the first non-military discretionary dollar is spent.

(Statistics From OMB 2004 Budget Proposal)

While there is certainly some waste in non-military discretionary spending (like studies in female arousal, bridge to nowhere in Alaska, etc.), that area of the budget is only one seventh of the total budget. It is in this area where pork barrel spending resides, but it is only a drop in the bucket. Without the line item veto, it is virtually impossible to eliminate pork which is never submitted on its own, but attached to important bills in deals for votes between members of Congress.

Now let's get around your rhetoric and talk in real figures, the real area of discretionary spending you should focus on is non-security discretionary spending, Clinton's last budget, FY 2001, non-security related discretionary spending increased 15%, let's track Bush and reveal the truth: FY 2002 - 6%, FY 2003 - 5%, FY 2004 - 4%, FY - 2005 - 1%, FY 2006 (projected) - minus 1% (percentages adjusted for inflation).

You can check out Bush's FY 2006 Budget Proposal here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pdf/overview-06.pdf

Congress made minor adjustments (increases) to Bush's FY 2006 budget proposal, but kept the one part under discussion relatively untouched from the Bush proposal: non-Defense, non-Homeland Security "discretionary" spending. This will be $391.1 billion next year, a decrease of 0.8 percent from this year.

Are there parts of his budget I disagree with ? Certainly, but I am not politically naive enough to believe any candidate is going to march lockstep with my ideas. For one, I see no need, or authorization under the Constitution, for a Department of Education. The Department of Education falls under discretionary spending. But if you want to lose elections, just try to advocate for cutting all federal education spending.

So where have the bulk of discretionary spending increases come ? Military spending has been increased by one third, and Homeland Security issues budget has been tripled.

You might even find interesting this August 2000 piece by left winger Paul Krugman about the smoke and mirrors of the projected surplus.

Reckonings: "Counting Chickens"

http://clinicalfreedom.org/Surplus2.htm

Maybe you will stop opening your mouth and swallowing what you are spoonfed without investigation and research, then again, maybe there will be a blizzard in the Sahara desert, which is more likely ? The budget problems this country faces resides squarely on the back of mandatory spending on entitlement programs.

You continue to show you have NO CLUE about the big picture, even in the face of facts, you comeback with more rhetoric and no substance. That, my friend, is called intransigence from someone with an entrenched ideology.

I could lay down more factual presentations, but it is apparent you are unable to grasp even the most rudimentary concepts and am wasting my time explaining the folly of your argument.

Without the line item veto, it is virtually impossible to eliminate pork which is never submitted on its own, but attached to important bills in deals for votes between members of Congress.

Nonsense. He hasn't even raised any protests about it. How committed do you think he is to doing something about it when he hasn't even acknowledged it as a problem? Do you have any explanation at all for his bizarre reluctance to take Congress to task for it?

Clinton's last budget, FY 2001, non-security related discretionary spending increased 15%

More of the selective, non-big-picture dishonesty that you accuse me of. In Clinton's first three years, non-defense discretionary spending went down 0.7%. In GWB's first three years, it went up 20%. That's not counting the increase in mandatory spending resulting from the drug bill.

And it gets even worse when you compare him to Reagan. Reagan offset increases in military spending with decreases in non-defense discretionary spending, and that was with a Democrat Congress. Bush and the Republican Congress increased them both together. How anyone can classify such behavior as conservative is beyond me.

You can check out Bush's FY 2006 Budget Proposal here:

Thanks, but I already told you than when his proposals become reality, that's when I'll reevaluate.

The Department of Education falls under discretionary spending. But if you want to lose elections, just try to advocate for cutting all federal education spending.

LOL! Reagan was even able to win Massachusetts on the platform of getting rid of the DOE. Certainly the Massachusetts of 1980 isn't more conservative than the entire U.S. of 2005. Also more recently, in 1995 the H.R. approved a budget plan to eliminate that department, and it didn't result in any kind of public outcry. That's because people simply don't care about federal involvement in education. They're quite accustomed to the notion that it's handled at the state and local level and, if you asked them, they would probably prefer not to have their school systems run from Washington.

This of course is above and beyond the fact that cutting federal education spending isn't at issue here, because Bush ballooned its budget well beyond what any Democrat president would have gotten away with with a Republican Congress breathing down his neck, and I think you know it.

What is he going to do ? Veto a bill that has most of what he wants in it ? Alienate enough of the republicans in Congress that he cannot maintain the majority ? Do you understand the political process at all ? You tell me how he is supposed to chastise those within his party and not have them say 'screw you' when he wants something from them ?

Clinton's last budget is relevant because he knew he would not have to answer for it, and the republican Congress allowed it. Also, your figures for Clinton's first three years are distorted because you are including intelligence cuts and other security program cuts that do not fall under military spending. You come off sounding like a Clinton apologist.

You simply cannot break from your narrow thought process, it is not non-defense/military discretionary spending that is the category to be used, it is non-security discretionary spending (which adds intelligence and Homeland Security programs that do not fall under military aegis), under Bush that area DID NOT go up 20% in the first three years. I provided you the statistics. You are mixing apples and oranges by including security related spending in your statistic. I have already decried the Prescription Drug Bill, it stinks, so we agree on that, but I also understand the politics involved in removing it from the political debate in 2004. I also realize that it is much smaller (half to one third the size) than what Kerry was running on.

Under what delusional world can you claim Reagan offset increases in military spending ? The deficit and debt under Reagan grew faster than it has under Bush, that is a fact.

And then you totally ignore the last two FY budgets (2005 & 2006).

Regarding education, the political atmosphere has changed drastically since Reagan ran on that platform, the electorate is much more polarized, the swing voters have become a much narrower segment of the population. If you want to win in today's political climate, you cannot cede one inch of ground to an opponent. Bush's education spending is another aspect I disagree with him on, but compared to entitlement programs, it amounts to very little.

The conservative focus needs to be on social security and medicare/medicaid reform. And sadly, the republican Congress has dropped the ball. That doesn't mean a blanket condemnation, there are members who are putting their money where their mouth is, just not enough of them.

You tell me how he is supposed to chastise those within his party and not have them say 'screw you' when he wants something from them ?

And yet you're telling me that he'll use the line-item veto power against those very same Congressmen? And what are they going to do in retaliation anyway? Not vote for tax cuts, just to spite him? Cut troop funding for Iraq? Yeah, that'll show him.

By the way, your "within his party" comment makes an excellent case for why we have better fiscal discipline when the legislative and executive branch are controlled by opposite parties. That's why I'll have no qualms at all about voting Consitution Party in '08 unless the GOP puts forth someone top-notch.

Clinton's last budget is relevant because he knew he would not have to answer for it, and the republican Congress allowed it.

It's only relevant if you thought I was somehow defending his conservative credentials. What in fact I was doing is showing how Republicans are more inclined to be fiscally conservative when the Democrats are at the other end of the power scale then when they're in charge of everything.

it is non-security discretionary spending (which adds intelligence and Homeland Security programs that do not fall under military aegis), under Bush that area DID NOT go up 20% in the first three years. I provided you the statistics.

Alright, 16% (when combining your three percentages), not 20%. Still far more than enough, considering that this is, as you say, adjusted for inflation. Not something to be doing when mandatory spending is increasing (much of it from a change in formula done at his behest), and when we're fighting a war.

I have already decried the Prescription Drug Bill, it stinks, so we agree on that, but I also understand the politics involved in removing it from the political debate in 2004.

Well, that's just lovely, but I can only judge him on what he's done, not on how he advertises himself. Although even in that department, he comes up rather short. His "compassionate conservative" mantra is downright oxymoronic, and there's been quite an interesting rhetorical shift from the 2000 to the 2004 campaign. In the first, he said "My opponent wants government to run your lives, I trust you to be able to run your own." In '04, he said, "My opponent wants government to run your lives, I want government to help you achieve your dreams."

Under what delusional world can you claim Reagan offset increases in military spending ?

I didn't say he offset it completely, but he did offset it. That is, he reduced non-defense spending so as to mitigate the increase in debt caused by his necessary increases in military spending. Bush has shown the opposite inclination.

And then you totally ignore the last two FY budgets (2005 & 2006).

And then you totally ignore the response I've made to that.

Regarding education, the political atmosphere has changed drastically since Reagan ran on that platform

You're saying the country got less conservative since then, to the point where the U.S. today is more liberal than Massachusetts then? Back when there was no Rush Limbaugh, no Ann Coulter, no Fox News, no any of the conservative media that we have now? By the way, how well did the Republicans do in the 1982 congressional elections?

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.