Skip to comments.
Republicans show they can out-Democrat Democrats
Houston Chronicle ^
| Dec. 9, 2003, 12:30AM
| Editorial Boards
Posted on 12/09/2003 8:46:30 AM PST by Ron H.
SPEND, SPEND
Republicans show they can out-Democrat Democrats
Dec. 9, 2003, 12:30AM
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle
Running for president in 1968, the late Alabama Gov. George Wallace liked to say "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans." Today's Republicans have proved him right. But there is a good deal more than a dime involved.
Turns out Republicans are spending just as much or more than the traditional tax-and-spend Democrats did during their best years, as evidenced by the House's approval Monday of a $373 billion omnibus spending package, that would finance most government domestic programs. It spends, spends and spends.
The facts speak for themselves.
Total federal spending has grown a whopping 16 percent since 2001, with 55 percent of that additional spending unrelated to the Sep. 11 terrorists attacks and the war on terrorism, according to Brian M. Riedl, a research fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Riedl reports federal spending has increased over the last four years from $16,000 per household to $20,000 per household, the highest level since World War II.
Pork projects have ballooned from under 2,000 five years ago to 9,362 in the 2003 budget, amounting to more than $23 billion, Riedl concludes. This includes $725,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, $200,000 for the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, $80,000 for the Hot Springs Bike Trail in Arkansas and $180,000 for work on the Farmers Market in Dallas.
And the pork funding has taken a new twist. Instead of Congress funding grant programs for federal agencies, governors and mayors, who would in turn make federal fund awards based on need, Congress now is more likely to bypass the agencies and governors and specifically earmark funds for local projects. People seeking federal grants can no longer simply file grant proposals to unbiased agencies. Now it is best for them to hire a Washington lobbyist to get funding.
Conservatives have a point. Republicans generally have not proved to be better watchdogs over the tax dollars of hard-working taxpayers, and in a time of ballooning deficits.
The House spending package now goes to the Senate, where it will probably meet a lot of opposition -- not for less spending, but in reordering what to spend tax dollars on.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Texas; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: bush; deficitspending; democrats; fraud; pork; republicans; spending; taxes; waste
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-140 next last
Oh well, so much for being for less taxes and less and smaller government and for the over-burdened and over-taxed working stiff.
1
posted on
12/09/2003 8:46:32 AM PST
by
Ron H.
To: Ron H.
Yeah, sure, the Comical doesn't care about deficite spending until it's Republicans fighting a war busting the budget.
To: Ron H.
Was this written by a liberal? A liberal who doesn't really care a flip about how much is spent? Here's what he cares about: he cares that Republicans stay in the box. The box defined by liberal journalist who hate us. It makes their jobs easier.
3
posted on
12/09/2003 8:52:42 AM PST
by
GOPJ
To: Ron H.
Please you sound like a liberal.
we did get a tax cut and lots of social programs are being cut and sent to the local states. Which is were they belong.
I am just estatic in watching my religeon coming back into public life. soon we will be praying in schools. This year I am saying merry christmas to all and, as I watch my liberal collegues get ready for christmas I thank them for celebrating the birth of christ and boy does that piss them off.
honest, when a liberal says happy holidays to you make sure you reply with " and a merry christmas to you" and when they discuss there christmas plans, tell them "that is a wonderful way to celebrate the birth of christ".
Their face will turn red. They clench their fist, and you just smile and walk away
4
posted on
12/09/2003 8:53:25 AM PST
by
hapy
To: Ron H.
Am I to assume by this that the Houston Chronicle is fiscally conservative?
If they aren't what's their bitch gripe? That a Dimocrat isn't doing the spending, or that it isn't going towards a cause they think is more important?
5
posted on
12/09/2003 8:55:13 AM PST
by
G.Mason
To: The_Victor
You might want to try actually reading past the headline.
6
posted on
12/09/2003 8:55:39 AM PST
by
Ron H.
(I'm a RLCTX.net Conservative)
To: Ron H.
Conservatives have a point. Republicans generally have not proved to be better watchdogs over the tax dollars of hard-working taxpayers, and in a time of ballooning deficits. The separation of "Conservative" and "Republican" is quite telling here.
Even if this was a lib writing this article, at least he/she is a realist.
7
posted on
12/09/2003 8:57:02 AM PST
by
BureaucratusMaximus
(if we're not going to act like a constitutional republic...lets be the best empire we can be...)
To: hapy
we did get a tax cut and lots of social programs are being cut and sent to the local states. Please name some of the "lots".
8
posted on
12/09/2003 8:57:05 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
To: Protagoras
Maybe he means they are being sent back to the states with increased funding! That's the only thing I can think of.
To: Ron H.
Who is John Galt?
10
posted on
12/09/2003 9:01:11 AM PST
by
Uncle Miltie
(I used to think they were crazy when they said "Republicrats.")
To: OneTimeLurker
Maybe he means they are being sent back to the states with increased funding!That's the only thing I can think of. I guess we will find out what they are if he/she answers. In the mean time, a short list of the ones you mentioned would be interesting.
11
posted on
12/09/2003 9:03:52 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
To: Ron H.
I used to wonder how the old folks kept voting for Democrats even when it was obvious that the Democrat Party had changed so much. Now I'm seeing it with the Republicans. They give every excuse as to why people should stick with a party that outspends the Dems and embraces homosexuality and Islam. What a crying shame.
12
posted on
12/09/2003 9:06:21 AM PST
by
Egg
To: Protagoras
Maybe he means they are being sent back to the states with increased funding!That's the only thing I can think of.
Yes that is exactly what I mean and I am an attractive she, thank you very much
;-)
13
posted on
12/09/2003 9:07:10 AM PST
by
hapy
To: hapy
Yes that is exactly what I mean and I am an attractive she, thank you very much And humble too! LOL
What are some of the programs you refer to ?
14
posted on
12/09/2003 9:09:23 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
To: hapy
That's the Christmas spirit! When people say "Happy Holidays" to me, I tell them to go to hell, just to really piss them off.
To: Egg
They give every excuse as to why people should stick with a party that outspends the Dems and embraces homosexuality and Islam.Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys. That's the mantra.
16
posted on
12/09/2003 9:10:39 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
To: CO_dreamer
When people say "Happy Holidays" to me, I tell them to go to hell, just to really piss them off.Wow! LOL!
17
posted on
12/09/2003 9:11:55 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
To: hapy
The U.S. may be able to afford the increase in spending if the GDP keeps growing; 8.4 percent is a excellent start.
The United States Gross Domestic Product was 10,416,818 (in the millions of U.S. $).
As the GDP goes up, is the tax taken by Government proportional to the GDP? So, if the GDP is 5 % for a year, tax revenue grows 5 %?
Then that would be over half a trillion dollars in extra revenue.
To: hapy
Please you sound like a liberal. Why? Were any of my comments to the article inaccurate or untrue?
I too also suspect what the Chronicle usually reports on most stories. In this case though I'm afraid they're on the mark. Spending by this Administration and Congress is breaking all time records and as the article states, 55 percent of that additional spending ($373 billion omnibus spending package) unrelated to the Sep. 11 terrorists attacks and the war on terrorism .
This doesn't even consider the $400 billion (actually more like $1.3trillion) medicare drug package that President Bush put the tax payer on the hook for either. Is there any limit to how much is going to be enough?
As an aside sport, I'm probably more conservative than you are Republican.
19
posted on
12/09/2003 9:12:41 AM PST
by
Ron H.
(I'm a RLCTX.net Conservative)
To: Protagoras
"Please name some of the "lots".
Small Business Administration is one I'm personally aware of.
20
posted on
12/09/2003 9:14:10 AM PST
by
MEGoody
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-140 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson