Big-spending Republicans

[goose]

Someone just crossed MY line in the sand....a gov'ner who promised "No New Taxes", and then proceeded to double the "Health Fee" (Taxes) on tobacco items (snuff, cigars, etc), raised the cigarette "Health Fee" (Taxes) 80c a pack...now @ $1.28/pack, and continued the "Health Fee" (Taxes) of 3% on ALL precriptions, doctor visits, and hospital stays. In the next election, I will vote against ALL incumbants......V O T E !...VOTE OUT THE ENCUMBANTS.
A good solution to all of this, as I've said for many snows is, double the salary of all politicians and send them home for the duration of their term....the TAXPAYER will come out ahead.

 

[Rebar]

Just out of curiosity, what would the Republicans have to do to lose your vote? Can it be done? Will you vote for them no matter what, or is there some threshold they can't cross? If there is a line in the sand, what is it?

My "line in the sand is pretty simple" - give me a viable alternative.

Right now, as bad as the republicans might seem, the Democrats are five times worse. And don't even bother mentioning 3rd parties, until one gets majority in a state legislature and the governorship, they aren't worth considering. And none of the current crop has even come remotely close to any kind of significant electorial success.

It's easy to carp and complain and make outlandish statements. But not so easy to actually have a plan to get something done. My plan is to work within the republican party to move them in a conservative/libertarian direction. Your plan is, what, hand the country to the Democrats?

 

[cracked butt]

Alaska, the third-least populated state, for instance, got the fourth most money for special projects — $941 million — thanks largely to the work of its lone representative, House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young. That included $231 million for a bridge near Anchorage to be named "Don Young's Way" in honor of the Republican.

"the third-least populated state" its also by far the largest state area-wise.
Yipee, its a drop in the bucket

For those complaining about pork, do a search on the "Big Dig" to see the bloated barrel of pork the MA delegation brought home to Boston.

 

[longeyes]

Why do I have the sense that most of that highway money is going to highways from Mexico to Los Angeles???

Bush says it will create jobs. For illegal aliens? Of course we can always do the "railroad thing" again and bring in a few million Chinese to keep the Mexicans honest.

 

[stevelyn]

They're spending almost billion dollars to build highways in Alaska. They're building massive bridges from nowhere to nowhere in the wilds of Alaska.

I love when people who've never lived here or even visited can talk smack about things happening up here they know nothing about.

FYI Alaska does not have the infrastructure in place of any of the Lower 48 states. We are still in a development stage. Most communities are accessed by air only and maybe water during the warmer months on the river system. Some of the coastal areas are served by ferries, but are seasonal due to storms in the winter months. Transportation costs and the of living up here are expensive. The only way to alleviate the expense is to develope a road system.

As for the bridges that go nowhere, the proposed bridge in question will link up a community directly with Anchorage knocking about 30 miles one-way off a commute that's normally 50+ miles. It'll alsorelieve traffic congestion on the ONLY highway leading into Anchorage from the north, which is almost at capacity during the morning and evening rush.
Another proposed bridge would eventually link Juneau to an all Alaska road system and avoid the necessity of having to go into communist held Canada or get felt up by TSA just to visit the capitol.

Spending a billion dollars on a road system here makes more sense than pi$$ing it away in foreign desert on a military adventure that we were decieved into supporting, against a country that wasn't a threat to us, and of which we'll receive no benefit from. At least we'll use it for more peaceful purposes. :banghead:

 

[publius]

Let Hillary win, then we'll pine for the days of such low federal spending.

Actually, as I pointed out before the election, spending growth was considerably slower under Clinton and gridlock than it has been under W and one party rule.

I could go and download the latest Economic Report of the President and maybe get some newer numbers, but here is what I found back then:

When are the Republicans going to start stemming that tide?

Checking the most recent Economic Report of the President, I see the following:
1992:
1.3 trillion total federal budget, 298 billion defense
2000:
1.7 trillion total, 294 billion defense

That's 400 billion more in socialist boondoggles in 8 years of Clinton.

2001:
1.8 trillion total, 305 billion defense
2004 (projected, meaning it will be higher):
2.3 trillion total, 455 billion defense

That's 150 billion more for defense, 350 billion more for socialist boondoggles in 4 years. Given the historical rate at which they exceed spending projections, it's virtually certain that the 350 billion number will swell to over 400 billion, or twice the growth rate we saw under Clinton and gridlock.

How about total government spending as a percent of GDP? That's an important number as well. After all, it would be insane for me to spend as much as $50,000 on a security system for my house, but it would be similarly nutty for Bill Gates to spend that little.

Anyone with a passing familiarity with the subject knows that government spending in the US has been around 15 to 20% of GDP since WWII.

In 1992, total federal spending was 22.1% of GDP. By 2000, it was down to 18.4%.

To quote Gomer Pyle, well gooooolleee! The GOP Congress didn't want that Clinton feller spending money, and they actually cut govt spending as a percent of what we've got to spend.

What have they done under W?

2001: 18.6%
2002: 19.4%
2003: 19.9%
2004: 20.2% (estimate, meaning it will be higher, if you'll recall the prescription drug boondoggle)
...
What have we seen under one party rule? Well, checking back in the Economic Report of the President again, here's an interesting item:

Education, training, employment, and social services. You might have already known that these things are federal responsibilities, since it says right in Article 1, Section 8 that, uh, everything affects interstate commerce so the feds have authority over everything. Anyway, back in 2000, we spent $53.7 billion on those things. This was drastically insufficient, so in 2003, we spent $82.6 billion. It's projected to keep right on skyrocketing.

At what point is enough enough?

 

[griz]

Why does anyone, from any party, tolerate this? We're all paying the bill for it.

Simple. When the election rolls around, the same people complaining about this bill will vote for the "lesser of two evils", ignoring the fact that they are voting for, and getting, evil.

 

[feedthehogs]

Ya gotta have roads and bridges in Alaska before you can drill for oil.
Right?

 

[Waitone]

Pasting pork on appropriations bills is traditional. The bill of choice is transportation legislation. Been that way since the advent of horseless carriages. No need to get up set, roll over and go back to sleep.

Republicans are no different than Democrats. Both accrue power via spending money they don't have. There is a day coming when this will all come to an end in quite dramatic fashion. Go get the lawn chair, kick back, crack open a Shiner and enjoy the festivities.

 

[HankB]

It looks like the only time Republicans actually behave like Republicans is when there's a Democrat in the White House. The Bushmen are spending money like drunken sailors in a bordello after 4 years at sea - even GOP stalwarts like Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich have nothing good to say about this pork-laden transportation bill.

What this country really needs is a real Republican majority in the House and Senate - RINOs like Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, John McCain, Olympia Snow count as Democrats - and a Democrat in the White House. (Unless we get someone like Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul as President.)

What happened to the deficit hawks? They seem to be extinct.

You know, I'm starting to think that all other issues - from gas prices to abortion to homosexual marriage to gun control to the war in Iraq - are simply being played up to divert us from asking questions about the one, real, ultimate, issue: How much of our money is government taking and who are they giving it to? :banghead:

 

[rick_reno]

"During his re-election campaign, President Bush appealed to fiscal conservatives when he vowed to veto the highway bill unless Congress kept spending within his budget request." This bill went ONLY $30 billon over his target.

Oh no, did President Bush lie to us? Is he a Republican?

"Reagan, in fact, vetoed a highway bill over what he said were spending excesses, only to be overridden by Congress."

 

[wingman]

Spending a billion dollars on a road system here makes more sense than pi$$ing it away in foreign desert on a military adventure that we were decieved into supporting, against a country that wasn't a threat to us, and of which we'll receive no benefit from. At least we'll use it for more peaceful purposes.

Agree with you on that, this administration has harmed the republican
party which of course is making the future easy for Hillary.

 

[BryanP]

Democrats like massive pork barreling, republicans don't

Riiiiiiiiiiight. And if you believe that I have a bridge or two to sell you. Oh, wait ...

 

[JohnBT]

"Pasting pork on appropriations bills is traditional."

The voice of reason. A man with a true sense of history. Yeah, it's just more of the same old way of playing politics.

But boy do I love it when the Bush-bashers jump on any old lame excuse to crawl out of the woodwork.

John

 

[griz]

And if you believe that I have a bridge or two to sell you. Oh, wait ...

Wiping spewage off of monitor now.

 

[Daniel T]

But boy do I love it when the Bush-bashers jump on any old lame excuse to crawl out of the woodwork.

But boy do I love it when Republicans issue forth that famous battle cry of "But they do it to!", usually in a whiny, plaintive voice.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Ya gotta have roads and bridges in Alaska before you can drill for oil.
Right?

Ya got a point there. And at least we're getting something for our money, as opposed to pissing it down a rat hole in Iraq, where we get nothing back but our dead young military people because George Bush doesn't seem to realize we have an Air Force and cruise missles.

 

[Smurfslayer]

It's about time.

And if you believe that I have a bridge or two to sell you. Oh, wait ...

Speaking of which... It's about time we got some extra $$$ into the transportation coffers. Back in '95 - '96, Bill Clinton PROMISED to "build a bridge to the 21st century"...

Well?

Where's this bridge?


Maybe now the taxpayers will FINALLY get their bridge to the 21st century.

 

[griz]

Where's this bridge?

We burned it behind us. That's why we have to keep building better more expensive bridges.

 

[Flyboy]

My "line in the sand is pretty simple" - give me a viable alternative.

So, if there's no alternative, then the Republicans can start eating babies and kicking puppies and you'll still vote for them? I know that's an outrageous statement, so I'm going to ask the question again: what would they have to do to lose your vote? They don't control other parties, just themselves. At what point would their actions cause you to take your vote elsewhere?

You might also consider the fact that some Democrats, particularly those from flyover country, are getting less and less impressed with A) the government's current tack, and B) their losses at the polls, and are reforming themselves. Yeah, Hillary and Feinstein suck; however, they won't live (or be involved in politics) forever. What if Zell Miller (or similar) ran for President? Would you honestly turn somebody like him out in favor of our current spend-and-spend-more Republicans just for the sake of ideological purity? You might also want to think about the effect that getting such people into power might have upon the direction of the party.

 

[GunGoBoom]

Mmmm, no pork like Elephant pork. On a scale of 1 to 100, the current GOP is a negative 50,000. The Dems (at the federal level) are a negative 50,001.

 

[Chris Rhines]

The Republicans have ALWAYS been pro-big government and pro-big spending, since the earliest days of the party. They talk a good game when the Democrats hold office, but every single time the GOP gets hold of the reins, the credit cards come out.

- Chris

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Chris is right. The Republicans do best when they are the minority party.

I know we all hated Bill Clinton, but when you think about it, I really think he has done less damage to our Republic than Bush has. The Republicans deserve the credit for that, because they didn't let him accomplish much of his liberal agenda since they controlled the legislative branch.

I used to think things would be great if we ever had a Republican House, Senate, and President all at the same time, but the last 5 yrs have proven me wrong. Since neither party is really worth a damn, we the people are better off when power is divided between the two parties, and they spend their time bickering with each other instead of passing legislation.

 

[Rebar]

So, if there's no alternative, then the Republicans can start eating babies and kicking puppies and you'll still vote for them? I know that's an outrageous statement...

It is indeed an outragous statement. I'd hardly equate being spendthrifts to baby murderers and animal torturerers. Heck, if being a spending other people's money was a crime, my wife would be in jail for life.

The Democrats would have to move well to the right of where the republicans are now before I'd consider voting for them. That includes fiscally, on RKBA, and defense. I consider that possiblity less probable then the libertarians taking the presidency in 08. Sure, Zell Miller would be great as president, but there's no way he'd get anywhere in todays democratic party, which is exactly why he quit it and campaigned for Bush, if you recall.

Let's add up all the pork the Democrats shoved through in their 38 years as the majorty party, before getting too upset over this years budget. I'm sure that total would be a real eye opener. While we're at it, lets kick in the "new deal" and the "great society" programs too. It'll take a long, long time before the republicans can get anywhere near what the Democrats have thrown away all these years.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Rebar, lets talk about those 38 yrs you keep mentioning.

I always thought we had a some Republican Presidents in there who could have vetoed those spending bills the Democrats kept passing... You know, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush...

I think Republicans were sitting in the White House for most of those 38 yrs. You know where the buck stops?