Opinion
Fiscal responsibility truly a GOP farce
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Robert S. Hunger:
- Sen. McCarthy not just another peace freak hallucination (December 14, 2005)
- For love, money or Seoul fulfillment (August 8, 2006)
- Politicans need not grovel to public (September 15, 2005)
- Robertson goes off deep end again (January 15, 2006)
- Veto override a shortsighted victory (September 29, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The U.S. House of Representatives last week narrowly passed a bill that will cut more than $14 billion in federal student financial aid and will take an additional $11 billion from Medicaid.
Channeling the spirit of Ronald Regan, congressional Republicans have suddenly decided now is the opportune time to focus on balancing the budget.
But since when have modern Republicans answered the call of fiscal responsibility? The notion that the Republican Party is the party of decreased federal spending is almost as absurd as continuing to call them the Party of Reconstruction. Ever since George Bush ascended to the presidency, the Republican Party has spewed out radical Christian rhetoric not unlike a dummy sitting on a ventriloquist's lap with little regard for spending.
In fact, according to the Cato Institute, total government spending actually grew 33 percent under President Bush's first term, the largest overall increase since President Johnson's Great Society.
Perhaps the most recent example of out-of-control spending comes over the summer, when Congress approved a $141 billion transportation bill. A provision in this bill — procured by Alaskan Republican Ted Stevens, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee — allocates $223 million to build a bridge in Alaska connecting the city of Ketchikan to Gravina Island.
The problem here, however, is that Ketchikan is a city of 8,000 and the entire population of Gravina Island can easily fit into any lecture hall on campus. If Congress is so determined to balance the federal budget, what possibly could explain spending more than $200 million on a bridge to nowhere?
There certainly should be some means of transportation for those 50 people living on Gravina Island. Nobody wants to see them stranded, forced to risk death and swim across a nearly frozen lake or river to buy groceries. However, in its seemingly endless lust for budget reductions the senate must have forgot Gravina Island also plays home to an international airport. And if airfare proves too pricey for the residents, they can always take a ferry that runs every 15 minutes in the summer.
But, of course, this bridge serves a purpose, and a large one at that. While residents may only use this bridge (which, incidentally, is taller than the Brooklyn Bridge and nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge) once in a blue moon, it undoubtedly will add waves of public Alaskan support to Senator Stevens' already blossoming war chest.
It appears as Congress only becomes fiscally responsible when it is in their reelection interest or when the representative lets his or her social values interfere with their fiscal ideology.
This is why the very same politicians preaching the wonders of a balanced budget hold no reservations in signing a blank check to fund the conflict in Iraq. This is why conservatives in Congress grant tax exemptions for places of worship. And this is why earlier this month embattled California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had the state spend $50 million on a ballot initiative — to curb excessive government spending. Politicians are only willing to cut programs from the opposite side of the spectrum in the name of fiscal responsibility.
When a bill regarding the budget reaches President Bush's desk, several thoughts must run through his mind.
(1) Will this bill reduce government spending? (If yes, proceed to question 2)
(2) Will this bill alienate the religious right or any special interest that donated to my reelection campaign? (If yes, veto the bill. If no, proceed)
(3) Can I claim opponents of the bill are either un-American or dangerous to our national security? (If yes, sign bill)
Ronald Regan was a true Republican. He stood for reducing the federal deficit, regardless of what programs he had to cut. However, since his presidency his party has been hijacked by those aiming to push their radical social agenda who care little about government spending.
Moderate, secular Republicans who traditionally speak on fiscal issues have been ignored and shoved off to the side in favor of a new order Republican who wins elections by preaching against homosexuality and pre-martial sex. And every now and then, these Republicans will take a break from forcing religion into the public sphere and rally to balance the federal deficit — as long as those cuts hurt godless, liberal institutions.
Robert S. Hunger (rhunger@badgerherald.com) is the editorial page content editor and is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
"Ronald Regan was a true Republican."
So was Ronald REAGAN, buddy.
This can only go on for so long, Rob.
Look at Israel. Ariel Sharon, a notorious hawk, war hero, and face of the conservative Likud party (a rough, rough analog to our Republican party) has left it to form his own. Why? The religious conservatives won't let him seamlessly withdraw from worthless desert land they see as Israel's biblical destiny.
The solution? Form a third party.
You laugh? Watch.
The moderate, secular Republicans of Kansas are being forced to vote for Democrats in order to elect conservatives - as opposed to the right-wingnut bible thumpers in control of the Republican party in the state.
"...the Republican Party has spewed out radical Christian rhetoric not unlike a dummy sitting on a ventriloquist's lap with little regard for spending..." OK Rob, we understand that this is your overall point. After all, you say this about three different ways in your column. However, you never provide one shred of evidence to connect the dots between supporting traditional values and increased spending.
Rob tells the story of the Alaska bridge as an example of frivolous spending. Fine. Most Americans-- liberal, conservative, libertarian, or other-- probably would agree that, although we are at war, Congress does spend too much and that this needs to be controlled. But what does this have to do with restoring traditional values?
The reason Rob does not honestly and thoroughly explore the connection between the two groups of issues is that it won't support his overall conclusion. The deterioration of the family has increased crime and continued the cycle of dependency. Homosexuality has increased the prevalence of HIV and AIDS in America. The decline in the family and abortion in Western Europe has created a crisis in demographics for years to come. There are all sorts of problems that the overall decline in the American family has created. Most, if not all, of these problems create costs that taxpayers ultimately pay for.
Not only is a greater emphasis on traditional values sensible policy, it's also hardly out of the mainstream as Rob seems to think it is. During the 2004 election cycle, amendments to state constitutions that properly defined marriage as between a husband and wife were passed by an average of 70%. It's Rob and others on the fringe left who are out of the mainstream on this issue, not the other way around. And that's why liberal Democrats will continue to lose elections as long as they spew hatred towards those of faith or put forth ridiculous, illogical arguments like those in this column.
"And that's why liberal Democrats will continue to lose elections as long as they spew hatred towards those of faith or put forth ridiculous, illogical arguments like those in this column."
So now it's illogical to want to not be in massive debt? Man, credit card companies must really love you. And when exactly was the last time you heard a Democratic politician "spew hatred towards those of faith"? Liberals and Democrats don't hate faith and religion, we just think that it doesn't belong in the political realm.