Republicans show they can out-Democrat Democrats

Houston Chronicle ^ | Dec. 9, 2003, 12:30AM | Editorial Boards

[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.

[Ron H.]

Let's see now, after reading all of your attempts so far at mis-direction or at ridiculing posters you disagree with I still haven't seen any of your posts where you state emphatically that the thrust of the article itself is baseless or untrue or better yet, a baseless lie. Is this your contention, that since it appeared in the Houston Chronicle then it shouldn't be taken as accurate or even truthful on the given subject?

[OneTimeLurker]

I have nothing particular in mind. Only that if they were sent back to the states, I don't imagine it was done without federal funding.

[Ron H.]

You said what??? You might want to check your facts before making such a blatantly inaccurate statement.

[Protagoras]

Oh, but in some ways they are worse.

That argument can be made, but my tagline only addresses the most oft heard reason given for voting Republican by people on this board.

[Consort]

...inaccurate statement.

What's inaccurate about it?

[Protagoras]

Perhaps, but I haven't seen anything cut at all. So I'm still waiting to hear what they are. I don't think there are any, but if I hear one, it will be the first one.

[Dane]

Let's see now, after reading all of your attempts so far at mis-direction or at ridiculing posters you disagree with I still haven't seen any of your posts where you state emphatically that the thrust of the article itself is baseless or untrue or better yet, a baseless lie. Is this your contention, that since it appeared in the Houston Chronicle then it shouldn't be taken as accurate or even truthful on the given subject?

Whew your above italicized passage would make Hillary proud, IMO, with the use of obfuscation(i.e the leftist Hosuton Chronicle is trying to rouse cinservative ire).

I guess your reply will be that the Hosuton Chronicle is not a leftist newspaper, which you know is not true.

[nickcarraway]

But there is a good deal more than a dime involved.

It's called foreign policy, that's where the difference is.

[CyberCowboy777]

While I take issue with PORK and expanding Government.

How much of the deficit is Defense spending (including Home Land Security)?

How much is existing programs underfunding by the shrunk revenue?

[jjm2111]

You gotta love how all the Bots pile on baaa-ntering that "of course we have to spend ridiculous amounts of your money; it's sow we can defeat the ratty RAT RAT RATS!"

Meanwhile the GOP controlled fedgov spends money like a drunken sailor.

[optimistically_conservative]

If 55% of spending is unrelated to 9/11, what is the spending increase had 9/11 not occurred? 8% since 2001? Well, historically that's about right although higher than I'd like. Most Presidents had an 11% spending increase over a four year term over the last 30 years.

It seems the difference now is rather than being the tax-and-spend Democrats, the Bush administration is the tax-cut-and-spend Republicans. Reminds me of Friedman's quote,

I would rather have total federal spending at $200 billion with a deficit of $100 billion than a balanced budget at $500 billion. (Federal spending in 1978 was around $450 billion).

Keep up the pressure to have a tax-cut-and-cut-spending administration!

[Dane]

You gotta love how all the Bots pile on baaa-ntering that "of course we have to spend ridiculous amounts of your money; it's sow we can defeat the ratty RAT RAT RATS!"

Meanwhile the GOP controlled fedgov spends money like a drunken sailor.

Just a question, who would rather have in the Oval Office, Hillary or Bush.

Oh that's correct, that's not your reality, nevermind.

[jjm2111]

"Ted Kennedy must laugh himself to sleep at night."

Oh, how that is true. From the "education bill" to the "farm bill" to the "energy package" to Medicare, the GOP gives the Democrats everything they want domestically in exchange for a few table scraps. Then the GOP crows about how great they are.

[optimistically_conservative]

You realize of course, using your criteria, that Clinton has been the most conservative President in at least 30 years - having held federal spending increases to significantly lower levels than any other administration?

Of course, he did it almost entirely on the back of the military, but he's still your conservative hero.

[Ron H.]

Let's see now, after reading all of your attempts so far at mis-direction or at ridiculing posters you disagree with I still haven't seen any of your posts where you state emphatically that the thrust of the article itself is baseless or untrue or better yet, a baseless lie. Is this your contention, that since it appeared in the Houston Chronicle then it shouldn't be taken as accurate or even truthful on the given subject? Whew your above italicized passage would make Hillary proud, IMO, with the use of obfuscation(i.e the leftist Hosuton Chronicle is trying to rouse cinservative ire). I guess your reply will be that the Hosuton Chronicle is not a leftist newspaper, which you know is not true. I still don't see a repudiation of the facts outlined in the article itself. Just more mis-direction and attempts at ridicule.

[Protagoras]

Just a question, who would rather have in the Oval Office, Hillary or Bush.

This was the question posed in the post just above yours. The new mantra of selling fear is much in evidence.

[jjm2111]

You see, your entire logic is: "Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the Democrats". (Thank you Protagoras) Is that the best reason to vote GOP?

Problem is; when it comes to domestic spending the GOP sucks. I'm a young guy trying to make my nest egg and make my way in the world and I lose 50% of my income in taxes. While the dems tax and spend, the GOP spends and borrows. Either way, the piper is going to have to be paid. And it always comes out of the little guy's pockets.

[Protagoras]

Just a question, who would rather have in the Oval Office, Hitler or Stalin?

[RJCogburn]

Ron so much for you taking the very liberal Houston Chronicle's word as the word of God.

I missed most the the errors in the article about the Republicans spending like Dems. Perhaps you could point them out to me.

[jjm2111]

Though Dane is a bot as the day is long, I have to agree with them that generally; there IS a palpable difference between Bush and Hillary (or Bush and Gore).

Gore and/or Hillary never would have held firm w/ the UN on the war on terror. Gore or Hillar never would have told the UN to stuff it w/ their campaign against privately owned firearms.

BUT, (and this is a big but), the Stupid Party always manages to self-destruct when it comes to spending. It happenes both on the state and federal levels. Taxes and smaller government is one of the GOP's biggest issues. Stuff like the new Medicare bill don't take Medicare (and Healthcare) away from the Democrats so much as give the Fiscal Restraint issues TO them.

When the GOP abandons it's principles it hurts them as a party.