“when we act we create our own reality”
Tweet
That is quite simply the only way to explain this
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.
George W. Bush has never vetoed a bill in his life as president.
15 Responses to ““when we act we create our own reality””
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Not that I’m particularly bothered by Congressional spending, but who do you square Rep. McHenry’s comments about this Congress paring spending better than Democratic Congresses with the American Conservative Union’s claim that non-military, non-Homeland Security funding has gone up more the last five years than any other time since the Great Depression?
What significant programs would you cut (and NOT replace with a liberal version)?
Dugger, Gonna talk the talk, gotta walk the walk.
maybe what the congressman meant that they had finally cut out all the liberal programs for helping the inner cities and such?
I would have preferred a liberal Medicare bill to the one that passed, Dugger, but I would have also preferred no bill at all. That’s just one example. But the issue is that Democrats don’t run on cutting the government. Republicans do, but then their enablers like you, Dugger, absolutely refuse to “walk the walk” by holding them to your own alleged principles.
Elrod
It is not my contention that this is or has been a frugal congress – merely that this Congress would (quite likely,IMO) spend less than a Democratic Congress with a Democratic President. Call it the cliched lesser of evils if you like. I’ve argued long and tiresomely on this site that Bush is a moderate, not a right winger. The spending, at least, would seem to back up that judgement.
TomY,
I know you’ve assumed certain traditonal conservative attitudes on my part, but they don’t always fit. I’m really unsure about Iraq and as above, I believe Bush is a big spender (but not as big as Dems in power would be). I believe there is a moral principle involved in taking from the public till, but I also believe the government has to spend some, even some on social programs. It should, however, never be easy to do this and politicians that pander to the public by easily promising give aways, no matter how “good” and needed the programs seem, are not the good guys and do not gain my admiration. My whole schtick would be not that Bush is good or infallible, merely that he is better than the likely Dem alternative. So when you point out his weaknesses, I might actually agree (I almost never agree, thouhg, with the ‘hate Bush’ , ‘Bush lied’ crap), but I would probably still support him over 9/10s of available democrats. And I note you did ID a bill you would end. And Elrod did not say he was generally against spending. It would be interesting to note how well just ending the benefits of the bill you mentioned would go over in Congress. How practical would it be, politically.
Dugger
Jefferson’s already under the bus, man. It’s over for him. His constituents are full of rage and looking for someone to blame, and here he serves them up an almost impossibly blatant symbol for insensitivity, elitism, and corruption.
Well, I’m sure you’ll concede that it’s impossible for me to disprove that a hypothetical Democratic controlled Congress and White House would have spent more. But what we’re talking about is *actual* pork being spent by the Congress and White House, and the fact that they’re patting themselves about holding the line on spending. But as long as we’re throwing our sense of things out there, I think the best case for spending would have been a government split between the parties, with a White House that was less prone to awarding fat contracts to their cronies and campaign contributors. Spending is not my top priority for good governance, though it is important. If it were my top priority, I think I would have worked to get a Democrat in the White House, and for Republicans to control Congress.
(And by the way, I don’t hate Bush, and never have. Frankly, I understand why people like him. I just think he’s a terrible manager, lives in a bubble, and is wrong about the major issues of the day. But honestly, ever since 9-11 and especially after Katrina, I root for the guy to do the right thing. It’s just that he rarely does.)
We could start with the Bridge to Nowhere, Tom.
BTW, Oliver. Any comment on Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana?
Oh that’s right, he’s a black Democrat. We shouldn’t risk throwing our own under the bus.
And the Tom I was directing that to was Tom Delay, BTW.
When it comes to federal spending, there’s really no difference, unfortunately, between Republicans and Democrats these days.
TomY,
I agree re Dems spending. Its also just my opinion a Dem Congress/Pres would spend more – nothing more. And not to go on, but I believe the nature of our government is such that there is very little real difference to us average toads of going from a moderate Dem BC to a moderate Rep GW gov. But I suppose that makes for unexiciting political debate. Its an interesting theory that a split government works best, doing some things but avoiding excesses.
Also one minor bone of contention. Worked in DOD (AF) for many years. We had many huge contracts. The WH does not award and is not even in on the approval cycle for any contracts. They never go higher than Secretary level. There is waste in government and there are bad contracts (like the original C-5 contract to Lockheed), but the kind of fraud and abuse and influence many people think goes on – simply does not. The process is incredibly complex and many times its lose/lose for the government . Often an entity like Halliburton or Hughes or Lockheed will get a contract because they are the only viable firm that can demonstrate they can do the job in the time required . Average gov lead time to award a contract is about three years – many longer for competed large dollar instruments. Sometimes I think I could write a book about it – one that nobody would read or buy but at least would vent my frustrations.
Dugger, yes I went on
Sucker!
Dugger,
Explain to me why we have to put more and more hoops and hurdles in front of Congress when it comes to social programs while trusting to the bureacracy of the Pentagon to limit fraud and waste in defense spending. I’m not so reassured by your faith in the grinding wheels of military procurement. The revolving door through which former Pentagon officials become executives and lobbyists for military contractors should be extremely troubling to all Americans. These guys have the access, the know how and the clout to work the bureacracy to their advantage. Is that not why they are so valuable to private firms in the first place?
And while its Congres, not the White House,that approves this or that specific defense program, neither Republicans nor Democracts in the House of any era have proven themselves masters of fiscal oversight when it comes to the military. When these same lobbyists promise Repus and Dems alike that every new defense contract means local jobs for their consituents, what do we expect our representatives to do? Take the high road?
In the end, defense contracts are just as much social programs as Medicare. Sure they create jobs, but the people in those jobs are just as dependent on government largesse as anyone receiving food stamps and/or Medicare. Ultimately, defense spending is not the free market. Case in point, isn’t it troubling that there are only a handful of companies who have a virtual monopoly on Pentagon spending? Isn’t it troubling, for all you free market promoters out there, that Halliburton is the only company capable of doing some projects? Whatever happened to competition? Are we to suspect nothing in the fact that Cheney, former Secretary of Defense, worked the Pentagon/private sector revolving door to earn whirlwind incomes at Halliburton before he became vice-president?
You don’t think Cheney’s history — without a word from the man himself — sends a serous signal to clerk and paper pusher on down the line about how to win favor from the next guy up the chain?
If you want to cut government pork the Pentagon is a perfect place to start looking.
Frame,
There is pork in the Pentagon, but probably not where you think. Contrary to popular myth, the old $1000 toilet seat was not pork.
And I didn’t say I necessarily wanted more hoops for spending. I want it to a hard choice to spend working America’s money.
And I don’t agree a defense contract is government largesse. People bust their butts working for those contracts. Undoubtedly there are some good jobs coming out of those contracts, but it is not welfare or a give away. The C-17 is a piece of d*mn good hardware that a lot of people worked long hours all over the country to build. And, no offense, but you don’t understand the nature of DOD contracting. DOD would like nothing better than to have a bunch of contractors out there who could do the these extremely complex and demanding jobs. Problem is the job is so hard and so specialized that contractors can’t afford to maintain the capability when they don’t have a contract. Unique skills and materials are required that are extremely costly to maintain. Why do you think the list of DOD contractors (major) is dwindling if it is this great big windfall? Sometimes they lose scads of money becasue the R & D is too mercurial.
And no re Cheney. Not one bit. A contract, the SOW and other technical details, are generated from the bottom up. They are predicated upon specific requirements from the services. Thre’s no way an office outside the approval cycle could come in at the last moment and dictate DOD do something they didn’t want. Do you understand that a respons eto a proposal or RFP could be 40 long volumes. DOD has multiple teams to evaluate each volume. It wouldn’t work.
Dugger
Dugger –
It’s fascinating. Everything you take as business as usual I find really scary. I wasn’t actually talking about $1,000 toilet seats either. I was talking about full-scale weapons systems and hardware. Do we really need everything we’re building and planning to build? What percentage of the defense budget comes down to just keeping factories open in certain congressional districts?
Frame, I was talking almost wholly full scale weapon systems. There are many more opportuniities for fraud with lower dollar contracts becasue the review cycle is smaller. And no my ex soldier opinion is that we don’t need everything we buy – even major programs – but we do need most. And I do think some procurement requirements are tailored on the front end to give ceratin major players a chance to stay viable – so that we do have competiton. For instance, we might orininate a new requirement for a follow-on stelath bomber. We might well need it, biut it would also help keep Lockhheed afloat – as they woulfd likely win the competiton – that being their specialty. And sometimes politicians force systems on us – like the CV-22 (psst., it ain’t so hot) or in days past that damn Mustang rehab.
Dugger