The Republican Congress & Bush

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been sitting in the Villainschloss in a foul mood. Foul because he is spending lots of time thinking about the profligate spending of the Republican Congress and President Bush. The WSJ's Opinion Journal had two really fine articles on this subject recently. One on February 9th, and one on the 10th. (You might have to become a registered user to view these links. It is free...)

Recently your Maximum Leader, in private conversation with one of his ministers indicated that he didn't think the current Republicans in Congress were as corrupt as the Democrats of the early to mid-1980's. Your Maximum Leader continues to hold that view. But, it is getting harder and harder. It is pretty bad when the generally conservative Opinion Journal runs a piece by David Frum that starts:

One way you can tell that Republicans have become the dominant political party in Washington is to watch them cash in.

The Frum piece continues to describe how Republican Billy Tauzin is stepping down from his powerful position on the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House to take a job lobbying for the pharmaceutical industry for $2.5 million per annum. Not a bad golden parachute. Now, having lived a significant portion of his life in and around Washington DC, your Maximum Leader can assure you that this type of move is not at all unusual. But to quote Frum's column:

Republicans should view such tactics and the bidding war for Mr. Tauzin on K Street as warning signs of ideological dry rot. No matter how well gerrymandered their districts, the GOP majority could be in jeopardy if it develops the same reputation for ruthlessness and selfishness that burdened the Democrats in the early 1990s.

Indeed. The Republican Congress is slipping (not so slowly) into the becoming a big spending party who looks after their own self-interest (ie: re-election). Look at these charts supplied by the Cato Institute concerning spending under the Republican Congress. Take the one entitled "Annual Increases in Federal Outlays." (I'd link directly but can't seem to capture the individual graph URLs.) Who knew that 1993 was such a good year in terms of small increases in Federal Outlays? But look at that huge jump from 2001 to 2002? Yikes! And it is projected to go down in 2004/2005? Really. From what crackpipe are the good analysts at Cato smoking (because your Maximum Leader will mass-produce them in the MWO)? With the recent announcement that the new Medicare Drug benefit will cost significantly more than projected (big surprise there) how can they say that? It doesn't stand up to the most minute application of logic.

The Republicans in Congress it seems are not just profligate spenders, but are becoming the strong-arm muscle men like Jim Wright's and Tip O'Neil's Democrats. To pick up from the Frum piece again:

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, who was one of only 25 GOP House members to vote against the Medicare bill, says Democratic colleagues have told him that the two major reasons they lost control of the House to the GOP in 1994 were the reckless liberalism of the Clinton administration during its first two years and "the Jim Wright and House Bank scandals that convinced people that Democrats were looking out for themselves first. For our own good, I hope we don't fall into that trap."

He and other members say Mr. Tauzin's jackpot couldn't have come at a worse time. Last week, the House Ethics Committee revealed that for the past two months it has been investigating an allegation by Rep. Nick Smith, a Michigan Republican, that party leaders offered him a bribe in exchange for his vote on the Medicare bill. Mr. Smith voted against the bill and later said unnamed members of his party had said they'd contribute $100,000 to his son's congressional campaign if he had voted in favor. If not, Mr. Smith said, they told him they'd see that the younger Mr. Smith lost his race. Mr. Smith later recanted, saying his claim of bribery was "technically inaccurate" and has since refused to discuss the matter further.

But other GOP members stood by their stories of strong-arm tactics. South Carolina's Rep. Jim DeMint said contributors threatened to withhold donations for his upcoming Senate race unless he voted for the Medicare bill, while Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri said a state legislator threatened to run against him. Rep. Tom Feeney of Florida was told his path towards a party leadership position would be blocked if he voted against the bill.

Bribery. Strong-arm tactics. Looking out for themselves first. Humm... Your Maximum Leader is beginning to think that the spirit of Tip O'Neil moves through the Republican caucus.

Now don't get your Maximum Leader wrong. As he said, he is familiar with how politics are played. But it is not looking good. There is always a give and take in politics. But seems as though the Republicans really deployed the "goon line" to rough up members to vote for the Medicare bill. Lets talk about that Medicare bill for a moment. It was a bad bill, in your Maximum Leader's opinion. It was a bad bill for a number of different reasons. Not the least of which was that your Maximum Leader doesn't believe it is the job of the federal government to provide prescription drug benefits to begin with. But it was also a bad bill because it's intent was all wrong. The President believed he needed a prescription drug benefit to run on in the fall. The AARP wants to give more benefits to seniors - regardless of their cost. And the Republicans needed to seem kind-hearted; rather than fiscally responsible. Your Maximum Leader knows that party loyalty comes with a cost. But on significant issues where members have demonstrated long-time opposition to the issue, the party whips don't always put the squeeze on members. Yeah, you squeeze the ones that might not have made up their minds. But, the ones you have no hope of winning over you don't squeeze. It is very sad.

The Frum peice has another great line:

If Republicans consolidate their control over Washington while failing to reduce the size of government, they will inevitably be caught up in the care and feeding of the state. Industries that want favors or protection from government will seek out and hire powerful people to move the levers of power. F.A. Hayek warned decades ago against the dangers of a creeping corporate welfare state: "As the coercive power of the state will alone decide who is to have what, the only power worth having will be a share in the exercise of the directing power."

Your Maximum Leader thinks it is important to point out some of the Cato charts again. If one examines them, you can see that the Republican Congress held down spending increases under the Clinton Administration. But are becoming spendthrifts under Bush. This is precisely the type of "care and feeding" we ought to worry about. Your Maximum Leader is not in favour of welfare. He is not in favour of corporate welfare. And he is growing more disillusioned with the Republicans in Washington.

What happened to the fiscally responsible Republicans of the Reagan years? (And early Clinton years?) Your Maximum Leader tends to agree with the other Opinion Journal piece he commended to you. The price of building up our national defence, and funding other Reagan policies, was to give the Democrats some of what they wanted. Go back to those Cato Charts and look at Figure 3. Only one year of Reagan's 8 is in the top annual increases in Federal Discretionary spending. Only one! (And Bush Pere isn't there at all... Your Maximum Leader also thinks Figure 4 is a good one showing the rate of growth between defence and non-defence discretionary spending.) Reagan had to give some to the Democrats to get what he wanted. It is the only way you can deal with a majority opposition party. Why does Bush have to pay the same prices?

Now let your Maximum Leader say that he favours the tax cuts that the President asked for, and the Congress delivered. And he favours spending on defence and national security. And to the extent that federal entitlement programs are entrenched and a swift elimination of those programs is both unwise and unrealistic; he realizes that significant federal dollars must be spent on entitlements. But all these other programs. All this pork! It is pretty disgusting. The Congress needed to tell the President that they would not permit the size and scope of federal spending (and consequently federal authority) to grow uncontrollably. We are in a war. So increased spending in some areas is to be expected. But what we have going on in Washington is beginning to border on criminal.

Carry on.