I always knew that if the Republicans were ever to become the majority party, they would do it by mimicking the Democrats. To support this point, this morning’s Washington Post includes a graphic showing the big winners (in terms of wealth transfers) from the recently-passed transportation bill. These include:+ $550 million for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex) to fund oil drilling research
+ $227 million for Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill) to build Prairie Parkway and Stearns Road Bridge
+ $454 million for Rep. Don Young to fund “the bridge to nowhere” (and to rename it “Don Young’s Way”), and a bridge to Ketchikan, Alaska (an island with 50 inhabitants). Not included here is a $3 million documentary promoting Alaska’s infrastructure
+ $36 million for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) to study sugar cane ethanol
And there is much more pork than this in the nearly $300 billion bill, which earmarks funds for over 7200 home district projects. The transportation bill comes on the heels of the equally egregious energy bill, which followed the prescription drug coverage bill before that. That taxpayers fund such spending projects goes far in explaining why savings rates have fallen to zero. Who can still save after being forced to pay for Don Young’s Way?
Will Bush veto it? He has justification to, since the House ignored his (fiscally conservative?) demand that the highway bill be limited to $256 billion. A veto would produce much wailing and gnashing of teeth in DC, but also, I think, a big uptick in his personal approval ratings. Not to mention that he has been talking quite a bit about freedom lately…
But it won’t happen. In the end, Congress controls spending, and it needs these projects to be underway within the first few months of 2006, an election year. The size of the bill itself reflects the degree of logrolling that was necessary to gain Congressional support for the war in Iraq. Since Bush has yet to veto a bill in his presidency, there is no reason to expect him to now.
My question is…wasn’t it the prospect of bills like this that caused many voters to turn against Kerry?
{ 6 comments }
Our Republican friend Larry Kudlow is as we all know a loyal Republican, but even he has occassionally expressed dissatisfaction with the free spending ways of his party. He tried to put a positive spin on this porkladen bill for the Republican Party by pointing out that all 8 who voted against it were Republicans. This means that among the Republicans the majority was only 217-8 versus 194-0 among the Democrats. That’s a big difference, of course…..
When I checked out his source, Cafe Hayek I was surprised to see that Ron Paul wasn’t among those eight.
But of course, as is shown by the roll call vote, Ron Ppaul hadn’t been bribed to betray his principles, he was simply not present at the vote.
I am relieved to see that Rep. Paul did not vote against the transportation legislation because he was not present to vote. If you can not count on Ron Paul to take consistent, principled Libertarian positions in Congress, who can you count on?
Not indicating any opinion on a bill to increase spending is not really a libertarian position, its more like saying that you consider other things more important than expressing your opinion.
I assumed that Rep. Paul was not present to vote due to some other commitment. Maybe he was avoiding the vote, but I do not have any evidence to indicate this, nor can I determine his motives for not being present to vote. I may be excercising bad judgement, but if I would give any member of Congress the benefit of the doubt, it would be Ron Paul.
I agree, Dennis.
business credit card Very good, thanks!
Comments on this entry are closed.