Pork: Who Cares?
By Neil Stevens Comments (73) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Federal spending in 2005: $2.154 trillion
Federal budget deficit in 2005: $0.318 trillion
Total pork spending in 2006: $0.029 trillion
Does anybody else see the problem with making pork a priority, at least if one is serious about significantly reducing either the budget deficit or the size of government?
If anything hurts this party, given the state of the Democrats today, it's going to be that we slam each other to the ground trying to climb on our respective high horses of True Republicanism. I'll let the religious right police their own, and for my part I'll make this reminder to the small government wings of the party: ending pork will not shrink our government or the deficit appreciably, so cut the hyperbole and find something substantive to work on that doesn't involve regular potshots at our Congressional majorities.
Source for spending and deficit: CBO. Source for pork spending amount: CAGW.
This is not in contradiction with my previous diary. My previous diary showed Mary Bono as unprincipled in her pandering talk about spending, while being a free spender herself.
My point in THIS diary is that one can be principled about reducing government without caring about pork.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
But I think the porkbusters see earmarks as inherently bad, regardless of the size of government of the deficit.
I hope porkbusters will refine their rhetoric then, not to bring up "fiscal conservatism," the deficit, or the size of government, then. Because opposing pork is not a smart way to go about any of that. It's just too small to make a difference.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
(The title doesn't mean anything; I just thought of it and had to write it somewhere).
I am both a "religious" and fiscal conservative. I agree that it would be better to slash Federal spending by shutting down several departments. But that is no reason to accept pork!
But if your point is that by focusing on pork we hide the bigger picture, in which the Federal government grows at a rate higher than economic expansion, I have to disagree. A little. Is it not better to get people to be suspicious of government programs, even when those programs are bribes to them?
Only then will we get at the REAL pork: Social Security, Welfare, Medicare/caid, and other "mandatory" spending. Mabel gets her Social Security check, and thanks the party of Roosevelt for giving it to her.
--
More brilliance such as that can be found at the Academy. And yes, I know how pretentious I sound.
I'll see your pork and raise you a deficit: I don't think the deficit is that big a deal either. Especially not at the size we're talking about now, and with a war on.
I understand the appeal of "starve the beast," but I think it's misguided. The voters do not want the beast starved, where "the voters" means a voting majority... which fiscal conservatives are not.
"Reducing the size of government" is therefore not how you reduce the size of government. It's how you end up with Socialism. We know that because for 40 years, the Republicans crabbed about deficit spending and preached reducing the size of government. They were rewarded with never-ending minority status while the Democrats made the government bigger and more socialist every year.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
This is one of my biggest bones to pick.
Based on those CBO numbers (BTW, does that number overlook the SS surplus borrowing in its deficit? How about supplementals passed after the official budget? If not, it's even higher...much higher), spending is almost 15% over budget.
Do we raise taxes 15%? Lower spending 15%? a combo of the two?
If we raise taxes, which ones? how much?
If we lower spending 15% (best answer IMO), what gets cut? 15% across the board?
BTW, if you remove non-discretionary spending from the equation, that deficit is an even bigger percentage. Non discretonary is around one trillion making us over 30% over budget.
seen this way, pork is about 3% of all discretionary spending.
Don't tread on me.
We have a couple of rules in the House that need to be changed, first and foremost. For instance, education spending is something that cannot be cut due to a rule put in place in the 70's. Basically, this rule says that education spending must be at least what it was in the previous budget. Then you get into entitlement spending and the budget just explodes. First, you change the spending rules. Second, you put forth the effort to amend the Constitution to where the Federal Government cannot spend more that what is in the US Treasury, and you include entitlements into this. This way, Congress will have to make a choice between non-descretionary spending or entitlements. Third, you must enssure that a Conservative majority resides in both chambers because if this amendment were to pass, defense would be the first to go with a Liberal Congress.
Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com
entail? Are agricultural subsidies included? how about foreign subsidies? I think we should trim the pork and we should hold Republicans accountable.
Let me put it this way, if we cannot count on them to do the little things then what makes you think they will reform entitlement spending?
If there is no will to do this then Why vote for Republicans other than foreign policy?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
"Pork" is a meaningless term. Someone upthread suggests that Social Security and Medicare are pork. I think its clear that for some people "porkbusting" means cutting the size of govenment by 75%, while others use it to refer to things like the mohair subsidy. There can't be any serious discussion until there is agreement on basic terms.
One from Pork Busters
Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.
So if conservative no longer means fiscal conservative, then what do we have left that makes someone a Republican.
Social Conservatism and support for the war in Iraq?
What does pork have to do with conservatism to begin with?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
With appoligies to Tina Turner for the title.
Pork is spending of mine, and your money taken from you in the form of taxes on projects and boondoggles when that money has better uses. Or better yet, money does not need to be spent.
Conservatism, at least as taught by Ronnie said What ever your problem is, Government is not the answer. Pork spending puts that point of view in the toilet, as it pure Government at it's worse.
The argument those that defend Pork seem to have it that it is the price for all the other good that those Politician masters of the art of Pork spending can bring to other causes far outweigh the harm it does.
That's just sad!
I disagree on that point, that pork is the worst aspect of government. If it were, I might care about pork, but I have to say these are much worse:
1. Pure, large scale income redistribution
2. Prosperity-killing taxation
3. Innovation-killing regulation
Compared with these, pork is so minor, that I find it hard to fault the party for it when the big things are being done pretty much correctly by the party right now.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Anyone who believes as Ronnie did, "What ever your problem is, Government is not the answer", and who believes the spending orgy the Republican majority has been on would certainly not qualify as being in favor of smaller government.
Pork is but one manifestation of the spending orgy going on in Washington now. It's not the disease, just a symptom.
Fiscal conservatives are generally opposed to spending increases by the Federal Government, both growth in government and PORK.
Revenue related in there too... too many people who vote for tax increases and against tax cuts call themselves "fiscally conservative." If that's what it means to be fiscally conservative, I don't want any part of it.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
The problem is, I've proven with cold, hard figures that there is no "spending orgy" in progress (including the War on Terror). And even if there were some profligacy in progress, pork isn't it, because as I showed in this diary, pork is negligible compared with the size of the budget.
We're talking ~1% of the budget. Some orgy.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
In fact over the last few years – despite the War on Terror, Katrina, and 9/11 relief efforts – we're below or at the average in our spending in relation to GDP:
I'd characterize the War on Terror as many things, but a wasteful departure from conservatism is not one of them.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Is way up as well. There is no excuse for it... I agree the problem isn't pork, but there is a spending problem. The Dept of Ed has increased twice as fast as Defence since Bush took office. Can't really blame the GWOT for things like that, now can we?
Measuring against GDP is useful... but it is not the only metric to use. If we were to get pushed into a recession (a distinct possibility, with the combination of borrowing costs and inflation we are seeing right now), we will shoot far past that magical 20% figure (the same one that makes LBJ look good) with today's level of spending.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Do you have a cite for that? I really doubt that DoE's budget has ballooned by as much as we've spent on Afghanistan and Iraq.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Meaning DoEd is up about 140% versus about 75% for Defense. Of course Defense is a much expenditure in dollar terms, but we aren't talking chicken feed at DoEd either. I don't have the link in front of me but it was from a Heritage Foundation study... I've linked to it in a post a while back.
Non-defense discretionary exploded after Bush took office. According to OMB, it has increased almost 25% after inflation from 2000 to 2005... that's only 5 years. The rate of growth has been reigned in somewhat the last few years but it's still growing every year, and it's growing on that huge bloated base we established a few years back.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Here it is:
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
your chart, here, displays what many are disagreing with you on. You see, the spike up in the past few years matches the pervious spikes in the chart. Look at 1972-1980, and you will see a trend emerging for 1998-2006. I understand what you are saying in regards to this being small patatoes when looking at the entire budget, but some people are asking you to have a little more foresight in this, and your chart does the same thing. You are correct on the WoT spending and I must say that that is the lone area of spending that is actually constituted as being in step with the Constitutional role of the Federal Government.
Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com
That's fine. If you want to push spending back down where it was when we got done taking the 'peace dividend,' then by all means, fight for that.
But getting nasty over pork isn't going to accomplish that. It just embarasses everyone involved.
Mesh your actions with your goals.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
... between 2000 and 2006. Are you saying it is perfectly ok to continue that trajectory for the next two years??? It's a friggin' rocket ship of spending growth!
At some point you have to decide what is more important. Intellectual honesty about what is good for the country, or partisan loyalty. Divided government restrains spending growth, that is documented, historical fact.
"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is not as bad as extending that curve for two more years. I'll take the gridlock. Even with Nancy.
"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson
I cannot believe how much attention this shoddy "study" by Cato is given.
The only two long periods of fiscal restraint were the Eisenhower administration and the Clinton administration, during both of which the opposition party controlled Congress.
Lets skip over the absurdity of trying to draw conclusions from a grand total of two data points. What he says is one possible explanation. Another is that each of these presidencies coincided with an end to a war, the Korean war and Cold War, and a downturn in defense spending.
Conversely, the only long period of unusual fiscal expansion was the Kennedy/Johnson administration, which brought us both the Great Society and the Vietnam War with the support of the same party in Congress.
The Vietnam war had bipartisan support in Congress. If the GOP had opposed it he would have a point. Since they didn't, he doesn't.
The probability that a major reform will last is usually higher with a divided government because the necessity of bipartisan support is more likely to protect the reform against a subsequent change in the majority party.
If this were true then the New Deal era programs passed by the Democratic party would have collapsed as soon as the Dems lost power. His response;
My judgment, however, is that the prospect for a major reform of the federal tax code, Medicare, or Social Security will be dependent on more bipartisan support than now seems likely in a united Republican government.
You got that? A Democratic Congress and President Bush are more likely to reform the tax code and social security than are Bush and a GOP Congress. I'd like to sell Mr Niskanen a bridge in Brooklyn if he actually believes this.
The fact is that changes pass if a sufficient majority of the company likes them, and are repealed if a sufficient majority dislikes them. The identity of the party which controls a particular branch of government has nothing to do with it, according to the historical record.
The prospect of a major war is usually higher with a united government, and the current war makes that clear.
Given the the Democrats voted for this war, and for GW1, I don't think that this is clear at all.
With all due respect, just because you don't like the results, and call it "shoddy, simplistic, nonsense" - does not make it so. Choosing between your characterization, and a respected economist like William Niskanen...
"William A. Niskanen has been chairman of the Cato Institute since 1985, following service as a member and acting chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Niskanen has served as director of economics at the Ford Motor Company, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and Los Angeles, assistant director of the federal Office of Management and Budget, a defense analyst at the Rand Corporation, the director of special studies in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the director of the Program Analysis division at the Institute of Defense Analysis. He has written on many public policy issues including corporate governance, defense, federal budget policy, regulation, Social Security, taxes, and trade. Niskanen's 1971 book Bureaucracy and Representative Government is considered a classic. His most recent book is After Enron: the Lessons for Public Policy. Niskanen holds a B.A. from Harvard and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago."
... I'm afraid I'll have to go with Niskanen.
However, if you are interested in diving into the econometrics, there is a nine page follow-up paper ( pdf linked here).
In this paper Niskanen expands the study range and applies a more granular and detailed analyis. Hey, knock yourself out.
In the paper he reinforces the previous work, and arrives at an additional conclusion, that the growth of spending is even more restrained when congress is also split between the parties (vs. just splitting executive and legislative branches). This would argue that the optimal result in 2006 (from a spending pespective) is if the Dems take the house and Reps keep the Senate.
If you don't like Niskanen's work, then how about:
"Stephen Slivinski, now director of budget studies at Cato, who has just published his first book, Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government. ...but the best is his chapter on the libertarian benefits of divided government."
Look, if you want to argue that only Republicans can prosecute this war, and you are willing to put up with two more years of this wild out-of-control Republican spending orgy to see if they can get us to a satisfactory conclusion, fine. I may disagree with you, but at least I understand the argument.
What is truly simplistic nonsense, is to believe that reelecting this crop of big spending, big deficit, big government Republicans under the mantle of this big spending, big deficit, big government president, will result in anything but a continuation of the acceleration of spending we have seen for the last five years.
Divided government works to restrain spending growth. Nothing else does.
"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson
nice, otherwise dispositive of nothing beyond what a couple of economists believe.
As we've had divided government nearly constantly since 1968 it is kind of hard to give much credence to their theories (btw, there is no such thing as "document historical fact" when it comes to this subject because correlation is not causation) no matter how much the number squeal on the rack.
Without reading the studies I'm going to guess they show a decrease in spending and deficits during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush41 administrations? Which would explain the huge surpluses we've racked up over the past 20 years.
... just dismissing the report (which are based on facts - not opinion - not belief) out of hand, while simultaneously stating you have not even read it. Interesting debating technique, but not very convincing or credible.
Actually it is your post that is dispositive of nothing beyond what you believe, since you choose not to even read the report or look at the facts.
If you read the article, or even my post, you would see the finding in the Niskanen study is that divided government "restrains the growth of spending" not "reduces spending". As far as I know, nothing actually reduces spending of the Federal Government.
Restraining the growth of spending is in stark contrast to what has transpired under this Republican single party control of the last five years, where we have extreme spending acceleration in all categories at a rate that actually exceeds even single party Democratic control of LBJ's Great Society/VietNam administration.
"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson
Maybe it has more to do with one party not wanting to spend and the other party wanting to spend... not the fact that the government is divided. I'm sure that Bush could work with Pelosi on spending bills. They both like to spend. Swapping in Democrat control of the legislature doesn't solve a thing.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
is that Bush will veto spending bills coming from a Democratic Congress. There is no evidence at all that this is true, and considerable evidence that it is false. Bush has spent his entire career, first in Texas and now in the WH, reaching across the aisle and working with Democrats. Many of his worst ideas from a GOP standpoint, such as NCLB, the drug benifit, and the immigration bill, were worked out in cooperation with the Democrats, Ted Kennedy in particular.
It makes zero difference what political party has control of which branch. It only matters which ideology is dominant in Washington. At present that is the liberal ideology. Handing control of Congress to the Democrats will not change that.
Cato has many issues which they care about as much or more than spending. The war, the NSA program, immigration - these are all issues where they agree with the Democrats. I'm inclined to see this shoddy "study" as an effort aimed at getting the Cato way on these issues, rather than an example of genuine concern on fiscal matters.
This study has been discussed before with a great deal of backlash at the idea that divided government, more than perceived party strengths, restrains spending.
I agree 100% with the findings of the study. Politicians simply cannot resist the chance to get on their soapbox and sound principled when it means scoring points against the opposition...same goes for the base.
Hypothetical: If Gore had competently conducted foreign policy after 9/11 but duplicated the spending record of the last 6 years, this spending issue would have been a much bigger deal to the GOP in DC and conservative bloggers everywhere.
But ofcourse, according to CATO's study, this spending spree would never have happened because these same GOP majorities would have been much tighter with the purse strings because it would have been Gore's budget. It also would have made for great campaigning by these GOP congressmen going on a record controlling spending against Gore's wishes.
When "principled political convenience" and the common good intersect, it yields good results.
Don't tread on me.
When "principled political convenience" and the common good intersect, it yields good results."
Unless that intersection is obstructed by partisan obfuscation.
TBD. All you can do is keep pointing to the facts.
"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson
The bulk of the growth in government is not coming from what you described as pork. It is coming from the growth in entitlement programs such as SS and Medicare.
By most measures there is no spending orgy going on. The size of government as a percentage of GDP is pretty constant at around 20%. This is projected to grow sharply as the boomers retire.
There are problems, but they were hardwired into the system generations ago rather than being the actions of todays Republicans.
Whatever your problem is, Government is not the answer
If that is truly the definition of fiscal conservatism then I think it is rather obvious why the movement has become ineffective. Very large majorities of Americans expect government to be the answer to at least some of their problems. I'd even guess that you are one of them.
The reason we're not doing this little thing, is that to accomplish the little thing would require giving up the big things.
Roberts, Alito, Hussein, Zarqawi, Bolton, Rice, USA PATRIOT, tax relief: these are the big things.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
A number of critical problems with your line of reasoning here.
First, your use of numbers to try and make incorrect behaviour seem acceptable or at least forgivable isn't really effective. Pointing out that pork is only 1.3% of the total federal spend each year, so hey, let's all ignore the problem is similar in form to someone ushering out a statistic that only 1.2% of abortions performed are of the late term "partial birth" kind, so hey, let's all ignore that type of abortion in favor of the kind that occur more frequently.
Second, and extended from the ratio and scale point you're trying to make, the idea that we ought to collectively give a free pass to the issue of pork and those who abuse it because we should focus on "bigger problems" is something of a false dichotomy - like many issues, this is not either/or. We can, and should, hold elected officials accountable for their bad behaviour related to all types of spending, big and small, discretionary and non-discretionary. It's perfectly fine to suggest increased focus on reducing entitlement spending but there is no reason that has to be done to the exclusion of the pork problem.
The other fact about pork is the dramatic increase in both the amount of money being spent and the number of earmarks being spent for. Between 1995 and 2005, you have a 1000% increase in earmarks equating to a 230% increase in money spent for them. So if you're asking for us to ignore what is evidently an out of control problem in Congress on the basis that it's only 1.2% of the spend today, then we have to ask what will be your response in 5 years if the number of earmarks goes up another 500% and the total spend rises ~100% to $60 billion (or 2.7% of the total spend). At this rate we may see a total spend of $120 billion in the next ten years, or 5.5% of the total spend. Will you agree that it's a problem at that point, and wonder how the heck we got into that situation much like we are with entitlement spending in the present?
Pork falls into the category of low hanging fruit, and as such it's one of the best measurable indicators we have of a congresspersons's commitment to the principle of fiscal responsibility. I've grown to despise the overused term 'litmus test' but gauging elected official's voting records on pork is a great way to find out exactly how principled they are, and just as importantly, where their priorities are.
You talk a lot about priorities and focusing on important things, but to me a (R) majority is wasting one of the greatest opportunities of all time - coming out together, unified, in opposition to all forms of wasteful spending, and using earmarks as the low hanging fruit, demonstrate how they re-prioritize spending towards areas of actual importance to the American people. This year we might have seen R's come out and say: "wait, we're not spending $1MM on the Mystic Aquarium in New London, Conn - that money is going to arm the Iraqi military unit in Basra instead. We're not spending $2MM for the Appalachian Fruit Laboratory in Kearneysville, WV - that money is going to fund NSA programs aimed at preventing domestic terrorist threats. Hello, we're Republicans and we can manage against priorities effectively." Low hanging fruit, a majority in both houses. But the fruit is so small. We might strain our thumb if we reach out and pluck one.
I think if we aren't willing to hold elected officials accountable for good behaviour on the easiest tests of fiscal responsibility then we're essentially giving approval to even more expansions ala NCLB and Medicare Part D. And we're going to continue being stymied by some percentage of congressional members who become corrupted by the free for all. A board of directors may think they're doing themselves a favor by looking the other way at a CEO who embezzles ten thousand dollars after leading the company through a few years of multi-million dollar gains, but they'd be taking a big risk and frankly, they should know better - they could find an excellent CEO who can deliver results and still keep his/her hands out of the cookie jar.
American voters should have the same perspective - on financial matters, we can have the cake (persons who adhere to the principle of fiscal responsibility) and eat it too (persons who deliver results).
Why is pork 'incorrect behavior' or even 'unforgivable?' The answer to that question is the key to the rest. Too many porkbusters take the correctness of their position – the eradication of all pork – as a given. But as all conservatives know, in life we don't get to have a utopia where we do what we want without tradeoffs. So in order to decide whether pork really is something we want to eradicate, we need to know what the reason for it is, in order to know whether the tradeoffs are worth it.
My numbers show that if your reason for opposing pork is fiscal discipline, you're barking up the wrong tree.
As for earmarks, can you show me proof of extra money budgeted as a result of earmarks? I'd be surprised if you could, because earmarks by its very name implies that it's taking money that was already being appropriated, and directing it for a specific purpose (and by the way, isn't the whole point of the Congress to pass bills that set policy?).
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
You said the following "we need to know what the reason for it is, in order to know whether the tradeoffs are worth it." That really sums it up for me more than any pie chart or statistical data. Ever since the beginning of our country we have had to deal with this principle. Remember the Barbary Coast pirates? We have got to stop voting simply out of fear and terror of losing. We need to start voting from a postion of strength and principled beliefs matter.
I would have to say that I agree with this post of yours. It's one thing to earmark something for a useful cause; it is quite different to earmark it for the study of sex toys being used on transsexuals in San Francisco. (That was actually something in the NIH spending bill a couple of years ago.) If one wants earmark the development of re-usable fuels, that's a bit more understandable than some of the things that get earmarked to begin with. Frankly, as a Conservative, I don't understand earmarks. What are they good for? Buying votes. Well, if that's what you are into, why not be a Democrat and grow the entitlement programs instead of spending money on things that will never benefit your constituents?
Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com
The problem I have with earmarking even for R&D on re-usable fuels is this:
Why would it be effective to leave this judgement to politicans? What sources would they use to deem a certain company or area of developement worthy?
I take ethanol as an example. Without huge government subsidies, this fuel is not viable. We are therefore pumping money into a fuel that cannot sustain itself in terms of cost. So what's the point?
Logically, I believe it would be smarter to let the captains of industry and investors find the answer and fund it themsleves. They'll do it because there's money to be made. They won't finance a dud.
Don't tread on me.
was to give an example of reasonable earmarks as opposed to unreasonable earmarks. If you will recall, in 2004, I believe it was, Rep. Pat Toomey went after a spending bill for the NIH that was littered with spending for things that were just not reasonable at all. One of these things was a study to see the effects of sex toys on transvestites in San Francisco--and yes, it was that specific. Mr. Toomey lost his battle and the bill passed as was, with the sex toy research in it. (I believe that the amound of money was something like $26,000. Peanuts I know, but come on!! I could tell you that for free.) Now certainly, a fiscal hawk would be more inclined to show some leigh-way in allowing the earmarking for the study of re-usable fuels rather than for something of this callibur? I would hope so anyway.
Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com
* To paint a budget picture that matches the hyperbole, porkbusters slice and dice the figures, individual departments and other select portions of the budget show more volatility than the budget as a whole. Further, growth rates are snazzier to talk about than the total size of the budget.
However you don't spend growth rates, you spend the total amounts. The Congress doesn't just pass the Department of Education budget each year, it spends the whole *gulp* 2 trillion. To be fair, the Congressional budgetary system IS broken, and the baseline budgeting system makes it easy to spend 2 trillion on autopilot, but process doesn't define the outcome.
Bad processes can produce mediocre rather than abysmal results, and I think that's the case now. These Bush years haven't seen us spend anything like what we spent in the Reagan years (which by the way saw divided Congresses the first six years, just to rub in the point that divided government is snake oil).
* The Basil Fawlty rule is in effect: 'Don't mention the war.' Or if the war is mentioned, refer to the slicing and dicing above. Apparently this is supposed to be the first war fought with a balanced budget.
* Some claim this to be 'low hanging fruit,' as though reducing 1% of the budget would help us tackle the really big spending areas. As though Medicare is actually going to be any easier after eliminating pork. As though the Congress really does want to reduce spending, but all they need is to get in a little confidence-building practice to do it.
* Pork is used as a focal point for dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. 'Compassionate Conservatism' isn't conservative at all, but is instead a fusion of Rockefeller Republicanism and Religious Rightism, so those of us who aren't members of either group will disagree with him for time to time.
But, comparing the scale of budgetary problems with foreign policy hotspots: If NCLB is Iraq, Medicare D is Iran, BCRA is North Korea, SOX is Venezuela, and FCC Decency is Cuba, then Pork is France.
Cleary some people find it emotionally satisfying to bash pork in the same way some people love to cry 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys!' (and count me among them; I'm sure I've written about 'French Lunacy' on my personal websites more than once), but emotional satisfaction is no way to run a political movement.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
you must first govern. The beast that is the federal government was over fifty years in the making, from roughly WWI thru the sixties or early seventies when DOE and EPA were added. Every state essentially replicated the beast over that same period. Most of that time, the government was firmly in the control of Democrats, even when there was a Republican body in Congress or a Republican President. You are not going to change that in one Congress or Presidential term or even in the now six Congresses that Rs have controlled one or both bodies or the Presidency.
Real dollar cuts or program/department elimination galvanizes Democrat opposition and the constituencies associated with the program(s). If you will remember thru the fog of romantic memories, Reagan was excoriated for his uncaring fiscal policies even as he generally allowed the Ds their way on social spending as the price for the very necessary defense spending. Real dollar cuts and program elimination are very good ways to be in the minority and out of power.
But if you can at least manage not to create new programs and entitlements and keep the increments under some control, you can direct how and where the money gets spent. The Ds have a vast network of D friendly contractors and non-profits as well as various interest groups and unions through which they can essentially launder money back into the Party when they're in power. If a D is going to spend money on a transportation project, they'll do it with a union project labor agreement making sure that the contract goes to D-friendly union contractors. A Republican spending that money can leave out the project labor agreement and throw the project out to a genuine competitive bid. Since it is on a Davis-Bacon price structure, the price will not be much different, but the beneficiaries certainly will be different. Over time, you can stop feeding the hands that bite you and over time, that will effect the constituency for those programs; those non-profits and contractors cannot live very long detached from the government teat, and that must be the objective.
At this late date in my career, there's only one job left in a government that I think would be real fun; sitting in an oversight position reviewing where the executive branch was directing the government's contracts and grants and doing everything I could to reward my friends and punish my enemies.
In Vino Veritas
Yes, I agree that eliminating programs can create political problems, but I really doubt that real dollar cuts are just as bad. After all, if I gave you a million last year, and a million again this year, I cut your funding in real dollars, but it becomes harder for the opposition to say I cut your funding.
We just need to make sure there are no autoincrements in the system to mess up this theory, heh.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
for them to say it, Ds can say anything, but it is a lot harder for it to get any traction. The autoincrements are a real problem for the Fed. Most states don't have them since they at least theoretically have to have a balanced budget; the Fed just prints more money.
In Vino Veritas
But this statement: These Bush years haven't seen us spend anything like what we spent in the Reagan years - Is completely false.
Which makes this statement:(which by the way saw divided Congresses the first six years, just to rub in the point that divided government is snake oil). - Also false
But don't let the facts that get in the way of your belief-based world view.
Hi there.
You're new in town. Neil's not.
So, you know, whether or not your points are valid, it's time for a little sitdown.
This statement:
But don't let the facts that get in the way of your belief-based world view.
...is one for which you lack the credibility to sneer. You have not been around here long enough to be a horse's rear to anyone, right, left, or center. Your next foray into nastiness will be your last.
That is my only word on this thread. Please carry on, nicely.
Thanks,
The Management.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Two points:
On spending: care to refute my claim with facts? There are many measures of government spending, and each have their merits. On what basis do you say what I wrote is false?
On snake oil: I hate to break it to you, but from the 84th to the 103rd Congress the House of Representatives was controlled by Democrats. That includes every Congress during the Reagan administration (97, 98, 99, and 100).
The Senate was controlled by the Republican party in the 97th, 98th, and 99th Congresses. That means for most of the Reagan years, the Congress was divided, which is what I said.
For the 100th Congress, both chambers were controlled by Democrats. Can you say Majority Leader Byrd and Speaker Wright? That means it was your outright dream of divided government, yet we had large deficits and a larger budget/GDP ratio than today.
Care to refute the facts?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I'm one of those ultra extreme conservatives who reads the 9th and 10th amendments as having teeth. If I honestly had my way, according to my principles, the federal budget would surely drop below one trillion, let alone two.
So maybe this government is close enough to YOUR personal preferences, that 20 billion is a big deal. But we're so far from my ideal that I can't sweat the small stuff, relatively speaking, or else I'd be so demoralized that I couldn't follow politics at all.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
High Five Brother!!! That is something missing in all of this. I think I can sit back and not worry about getting your back--not that I thought you needed it to begin with. Preach on, Preach on.
Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com
I guess the question comes down to, "Are you a Regan republican or a Bush republican?"
FYI, Bush is NOT a Regan republican.
And the difference MATTERS.
Government spending grew like CRAZY during the Reagan years. So are you saying that Bush Republicans spend more frugally than Reagan Republicans, or what?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
From Stephen Slivinski's Tax & Budget Bulletin #26 (pdf file):
"Reagan’s discretionary spending increase is mainly a result of his defense buildup. However, he paid for that defense buildup in part with offsetting cuts in the nondefense budget. During the first year of Reagan’s presidency, nondefense spending went down by $10 billion in nominal terms. By the end of Reagan’s tenure, nondefense spending was up in nominal terms but down considerably once you adjust for inflation. All told, Reagan presided over a real nondefense discretionary spending cut of 9.5 percent. Contrast that with Bush’s presidency so far. He has presided over massive increases in almost every category. This is a dramatic change of pace from most previous presidents, when increases in defense spending were offset by cuts in nondefense spending (or at least by spending money on other programs at a rate slower than inflation). George W. Bush’s tenure has so far been a return to the Johnson and Carter philosophy of budgeting that gives increases to all categories of spending."
"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson
"Massive" is not a substitute for specific data.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Actually, the data was in the report linked in my prior comment. But, I just want to be helpful. This chart is extracted from that report. Draw your own conclusions.
Once again, you fall back on vague, sliced-up growth rates.
Why? Because the actual numbers don't help your cause.
Now go away you troublemaker you. Stop lying about the Republican spending. We all know the truth: you're just trying to demoralize Republicans to achieve your stated goal of a Democratic Congress.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
This discussion was going so well until you trivialized the whole matter with that explanation. I don't care whether his intention was to promote a Dem Congress or not. The points are valid, as uncomfortable as they are, and they should be acknowledged and dismissed as part of some sinister agenda.
Besides, CATO doesn't have a partisan agenda. They are true believers in free markets and limited government.
Don't tread on me.
The problem here is that I don't think he's arguing in good faith. That's what mobies and demoralizers do: they come here to try to make Republicans not want to turn out to vote. Turnout being so important to elections after all.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
But it doesn't take away from the points made by Cato.
For my part, that study resonates for me when I look at how principled and determined the GOP House was after taking control in 1994, then softening a bit with the years and then changing almost overnight in 2001 when Bush went into the WH: Tax cuts...and then SPEND, SPEND, SPEND on anything and everything.
They seemed to lose their zeal as soon as one of their own was in the oval office. I now look back fondly at the Clinton/Gingrich GOP marriage as one of the best political duets in recent history. Clinton seemed to bring out their best. Bush, enduring power and trying to maintain that power seem to be bringing out their worst. Reform has given way to politics and power.
Don't tread on me.
Cato massages their numbers heavily to try to make their point.
And we all know that libertarians oppose spending on the war, so if you're pro-war on terror then citing Cato probably isn't a good idea. Nor is citing the Clinton era, when we gutted our military in order to take that 'peace dividend.'
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Neil
In another thread you stated that you were in elementary school during the Reagan years, some of us old timers were voting Republican and earning a living then. For those of us who lived through Carter, and then Reagan you really don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Reagan was in trouble all the time over his cuts to spending. The famous School Lunch program guffaw over "Catsup" is a vegetable comes to mind.
Ronnie cut taxes and cut programs with David Stockma as the head of OMB, who by the way was one of the most hated folks in Washington at the time.
So before you make claims about a time you did not live through as an adult, take a deep breath.
Yeah, he cut programs. So?
Is that what this is about? Are you more interested in the symbolism of cutting programs while the total budget hits a 25+-year high with respect to the total economy, or do you want to keep the size of the budget in check while keeping programs intact?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Neil. I agree with you that bashing pork spenders is not a winning strategy for the GOP this fall, after all someone else's pork is my bike path. I also know the cannard that is divided government equals restrained spending is hokum.
I forget your stand on illegal immigration, but I think the HOUSE GOP'S best strategy this November is to remind voters that if the Dems win the house, illegal immigrants becoming citizens is all but accomplished. The House Dems along with the Senate will come up with a bill that President Bush WILL SIGN. It will be our own fault. DON"T STAY HOME> DON'T LET A COMPROMISE HAPPEN BEFORE THE '06 elections.
Let's say that's one issue where I think the President is misguided, heh. So yeah, I think you're right: a Democratic House next year would be bad news for opponents of illegal immigration.
Just like a full Democratic Congress would be bad news for gun owners.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.