Jackson Free Press

According to a story in the Washington Post, Republicans plan to attempt to pass $35 billion in spending cuts, part of a plan set forth in the spring, although some conservatives want to see further cuts to make up for Katrina and other emergency spending. This at a time when pork projects have helped push our national debt over Eight Trillion dollars.

Sources in the House of Representatives said it likely would be mid-week before Republican leaders know whether they have enough support for spending reductions, including cuts in health programs for the elderly and poor, that go beyond the $35 billion sketched out last spring.

...

Republicans, who also control the White House, have now presided over an increase in $2 trillion to the national debt over four years or so, despite contending that they are the only U.S. political party that practices fiscal discipline.

The debt racked up since the Bush Administration took office has added about $50 billion per year in required spending to the annual budget just so that we can make minimum interest payments on that debt.

It's tempting to say that this debt is the result of wars and a reaction to terrorism, and that's partly correctly, but it also, obviously has something to do with the low tax base that we have to work with. And, the "guns and butter" mentality has spread out in such a way that our government, with both Congress and the White House controlled by Republicans, has fostered anything but a culture of fiscal responsibility.

In 2005, pork project have hit record levels according to The Club for Growth:

2005 - 13,997
2004 - 10,656
2003 - 9,362
2002 - 8,341
2001 - 6,333
2000 - 4,326
1999 - 2,838
1998 - 2100
1997 - 1,596
1996 - 958
1995 - 1439

Pork spending on the recent highway bill was $23 billion alone for nearly 6,400 projects, according to Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe. And he notes how different today is from a former Republican administration, from back when Republicans were supposed to have been fiscal conservatives:

For example, Ronald Reagan vetoed the 1987 highway bill because it included 121 earmarks and was $10 billion over the line he had drawn in the sand. ''I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair," he said. President Bush is a great admirer of Reagan's record in foreign affairs. Too bad he shows so little interest in following the Gipper's fiscal lead as well.

Previous Commentsshow

Todd, just asking for clarification here: are you saying that pork is bad in general or that Republicans are hypocrites for increasing pork --or both? If itís that the Republicans are hypocrites, does this in any way surprise you? As soon as either party gets control of all three houses (House, Senate, and White), youíre going to see ham being thrown all over the country. Reagan vetoed the í87 highway bill because the majority of the pork was going to Democratic districts. Since the GOP has been in charge of writing the appropriations bills, the earmarks have been going to Republican districts. Hypocritical? Maybe. Politics as usual? Definitely. If itís that pork is just bad in general, Iíll have to disagree. ìPorkî is what Congress uses to bribe greedy voters in other districts and states (bad). What ìweî get is needed economic development support and incentives (good). If youíre from Mississippi, itís Saint Thad, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. If youíre from Pennsylvania, itís Thaddeus Diabolis, Waster of Public Funds.

Rex

Oct 25 2005

It would not matter if it were Repubs or Dems. If you have all three houses of government under one party, as we have now, you are going to have a spending frenzy. The reason the economy and deficits were under control under Clinton was because we had "blessed" gridlock and money wasn't being approved for much. If the Dems controlled all three branches (House, Senate, and White House), it would be the same with the spending. We have got to get this under control. Bridges to nowhere, 250 billion for Mary Landreau and company, return to the moon, Nation building for the Oil companies (Iraq War).. I mean come on folks.

ATLExile

Oct 25 2005

Todd, just asking for clarification here: are you saying that pork is bad in general or that Republicans are hypocrites for increasing pork --or both? Well, I think you're right that one state's Pork is another state's Jobs. (I noticed in my reading, for instance, that the Fed goverment has earmarked $3 million for a documentary film in Alaska. Just think of all the Jobs we could created for Mississippians if we had that money. ;-) But the sheer number suggests that Republicans are *really good* at handing out pork project when they control 2 (3?) branches of goverment. It would not matter if it were Repubs or Dems. If you have all three houses of government under one party, as we have now, you are going to have a spending frenzy. I agree. It's a rather simple read of economic history, but I believe that -- at least since WWII -- the domestic economy has done best with a Dem in the WH and a Republican-controlled Congress. Modern Republicans are a better opposition party than a ruling party, IMHO. The second best arrangement is a Rep in the WH and a Dem-controlled Congress; The worst case seems to be having one party rule both.

Todd Stauffer

Oct 25 2005