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 ([email protected]) is the editorial page content editor and is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.