Representative Tom DeLay's declaration of victory over government waste is a parody, right?
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible.
"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.
Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."
It's just so absurd, I don't see how he could possibly utter those statements. Maybe Scott Ott has infiltrated the Washington Times?
The only other explanation I can think of is that DeLay and Congressional Republicans have completely different spending priorities than I and many other fiscally conservative members the party do. The federal budget has swollen by more than 25% from 2001 to 2004 -- the chart below doesn't even include 2005.
Note that the y-axis doesn't start at zero.
If you're more than four years old you may remember that the country seemed to operate pretty smoothly during the 1990s. Sure, there was some occasional philandering, but the budget at least stayed down. If all the fat has been trimmed, how come we weigh 25% more? If we survived the 1990s, is it fair to argue that the subsequent increases aren't "fat"? Sure, some of the extra spending is due to the War on Terror, but most of it is not. President Bush's prescription drug benefit alone will end up costing more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
hopefully this will put an end, once and for all, to the notion that Republicans are in favour of "small government".
The principle concept that kept spending under control in the 1990's is divided government; one party has the Presidency and the other has the majority in Congress.
With either party in control of both branches of government, it clears the way for spending on their respective "pet projects" and issues.
Additionally, in a divided government scenario, neither party gets everything it wants, which forces compromise, keeps government power from tilting too far in one ideological direction or the other, and helps to keep a lid on spending (Democrats won't agree to fund Republican pet projects and Republicans won't agree to fund Democratic pet projects).
Also...
Consider this article: $180,000 Lenco BearCat assault vehicle
Now, being a WI resident myself who's been to La Crosse numerous times... a town of roughly 35-40K people... it's awfully hard for me to believe that they need a Lenco BearCat assault vehicle.
Believe me... the cat problem (as discussed on MW's site once upon a time) can be adequately addressed by the guns of private citizens.
Mannish: Well, some Republicans are for small government, perhaps even most. More than are any Democrats I'm aware of, anyway. Unfortunately, our political class of every stripe keep their jobs by bribing us with our own money.
MW: No, "most" Republicans are not for small government. If they were, there would have been more opposition to appropriations bills and, perhaps, significantly fewer of them.
MW: Well, some Republicans are for small government, perhaps even most. More than are any Democrats I'm aware of, anyway.
In terms of the rank and file, yes this is probably true so some extent. However, the ones in power don't actually ever seem to be deliver.
MW: Unfortunately, our political class of every stripe keep their jobs by bribing us with our own money.
and history has shown that its the Republicans who bribe us more than the Democrats.
Beyond that, I've always thought that the "small government" angle was just good marketing and nothing else. Depending on which group of Republicans that you are talking about, many Republicans are in favour of bigger government in many areas. They just pull out the "small government" label to oppose anything that the Democrats propose. Examples of big government Republican issues include:
-Bigger and bigger military, including having enough nukes to destroy the earth several times over
-Big prisons. Putting people away for life for stealing video cassettes is expensive. Capital Punishment isn't cheap either when you add in the legal costs.
-War on drugs
-Terri Schiavo
-Various anti-sodomy measures over the years and other anti-gay rights things
-Patriot Act
Of anybody, I think its the Libertarians (note capital L) who are truly in favour of small government as they are fairly consistant and also understand and accept the ramifications of a smaller government.
No fat left to cut???? He needs a sharper knife!
So, Michael, the empirical evidence shows that if you want fiscal responsibility, you'll have better luck with a Democratic president. Can we count on your joining the majority in this, our oh-so-blue state, in 2008?
Manish: "Smaller government" is usually understood to be in terms of money. Those other issues are certaily important, but not within the scope of the current discussion.
JC: Well, a divided government does appear to be good for the country fiscally. If it weren't for the war on terror and the left's lack of enthusism for winning it, I might be happy with Republicans in the Congress and a Democrat in the White House. But then again, the President gets to appoint judges, so maybe I'd prefer the other way around.
Mark: I think a lot of Republicans are upset by Congress' spending addiction.
MW: Republicans outside of DC, maybe... but not the ones in DC, where it counts the most.