During my time in Massachusetts, the representatives (both state and federal) couldn't stop talking about how Tip O'Neill was so wonderful because of all the federal money he brought to the state during his political career. The praise was obscene. And these points were raised while debating what new federal building and/or part of the Big Dig (at the time the 93 tunnel) to name after him.

This sort of thing has to stop.

Democrats suck big time. but isn't kinda sad when today's line coming from Republicans reads as "we suck but still definetly vote for us because the other guy sucks way more!"

The GOP has come a long way in spending the past year or two and is the only party which a chance of slimming down. You'll never get that from the Democrats, but you just might with the GOP as the base demands it more and more…

Its just that I hear a lack of 'look what we have accomplished' from the GOP

It instead seems to be focusing on 'Gay marriage. San Francisco. Palosi, be scared ..very scared!!'

LoadTheMule:

Examples please?

Look at discretionary spending pre and post Bush. Here is a summary.

Some of you guys on this blog seem to have the idea that congress is acting like little children who just broke in the candy jar: However, the facts are different, with unfortunately neither the left or right wing press interested in circulating them.

The reality is that discretionary spending has been rained in year-to-year since Bush came in office, with each year getting a bit better than the last (compared to the insanity of the last year of Clinton's budget).

The true growth in our budget, other than military spending for Iraq, in the last 6 years has come solely from growth in entitlement spending.

If you want to prevent this country from going socialist, the Republicans are your only hope. The DNC would take us far left in the twinkling of an eye.

Be scared, ..very scared!!

My chagrin is that I hear very little 'here is our record for the last two years. Vote for us!' from the Republicans.

The Republican record for the last five years is that we have staved off Al Gore and John Kerry from taking the country to the far left. Thought you knew that already. There's a lot more, but that is good enough. The Republicans have rescued the economy from the excessive taxation of the previous admin, and there are two "beachhead countries" of freedom in the Middle East.

The true growth in our budget, other than military spending for Iraq, in the last 6 years has come solely from growth in entitlement spending.

And that's okay? I dunno about you, but I didn't vote the critters into office so they'd hold down discretionary spending (which is peanuts by comparison). I voted 'em in to deal with the entitlement programs. Didn't you?

Regards…

Figures recently released by the Office of Management and Budget show the Bush Administration's explosion of discretionary federal spending. Here is a chart based on historical figures from the U.S. Budget showing percentage increases in discretionary outlays:

Fact Check

Carrick, Guess how Congress classifies the following..

.is it funding for Our War Against Terror, Intitlement Spending, Discretionary Spending, or anything else?

How would you classify it?

LoadTheMule:

And that's okay? I dunno about you, but I didn't vote the critters into office so they'd hold down discretionary spending (which is peanuts by comparison). I voted 'em in to deal with the entitlement programs. Didn't you?

Well, it's progress, you have to admit.

It also points to the fact that we need to spend less political capital on earmarked programs, which, although they make big fat targets, are only a tiny fraction of the problem.

What is lacking is a serious proposal on how to get entitlement programs under control. As The Whistler points out, Republicans don't have a lock on congressional power, and can't achieve anything without help from the Democrats.

Who of course cheered, when Bush mentioned the defeat of his Social Security reform program. Wow.

.is it funding for Our War Against Terror, Intitlement Spending, Discretionary Spending, or anything else?

How would you classify it?

As unimportant in amount, and not worth expending any political capital on.

Our total budget is $1.4 trillion. The amounts being discussed don't even scratch the dust on our current budget.

At some point, we have to trust our administration and congressmen to make wise choices with how they spend their individual funds. If they do a poor job, they should be fired. Watching how the pennies get spent is called "micromanaging" in my book. To the degree that oversight is necessary, it looks like it's working in this case, so no reason for me to sweat.

The issue for the voter is "how does the overall pattern of spending look"?

This is a policy question who's answer all Americans should participate in, IMHO.

What is lacking is a serious proposal on how to get entitlement programs under control.

Exactly! And this is where I fault them all, but especially the Republicans. There is not now–nor has there ever been–a serious, all-encompassing proposal on how to get entitlement programs under control.

Much like with illegal immigration, they deal with it piecemeal so they can bob and weave and accomplish nothing while looking like they're addressing the issue.

IF there was a serious proposal on how to address the entire entitilement monster, the voters could actually build some steam behind it.

All I'm willing to do at this point is damn the critters with faint praise for their minimal discretionay restraint.

My original point remains.

Regards…

From RedState.com

Correction,

LESS Republicans in the mold of incumbent Senator Lincoln Chaffe (R-RI) and more Republicans in the mold of Stephen Laffey,

In a move that will surely bring a humored smile to many fiscal conservatives' faces, Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) is out with a new television ad calling himself "the most fiscally responsible senator in the nation." The ad, which targets fiscal conservative Stephen Laffey, who had to raise Cranston, RI taxes within days of becoming mayor in order to avoid financial default for the municipality, tries to say Linc is a good steward and Laffey is a repeat tax hiker…

Robert108:

electing Dems has no hope of getting what you say you want.

I would go so far as to say that electing Democrats will simply ensure increased entitlement spending (up to ~10% GDP from 2% GDP 40 years ago), and no fiscal control on discretionary spending.

And, for what it's worth, an open border policy and socialized medicine.

So, LTM, what is your proposal? Can you make a proposal that has a chance in Hades of being passed with the current near parity of the House & Senate?

And why do you think going from +15% growth in discretionary spending in 2001 (making it the fastest growing segment of the budget) to -2% is worthy of only "faint praise"?

A: Remember 9/11? That required expenditures not normally required in peacetime. Actually, the first Bush budget didn't arrive until October, 2001. For most of 2001, we were on the last Clinton budget.

Carrick you keep arguing from bogus numbers.

The President wrongly claimed he cut the growth of discretionary spending. Reality: the growth rate multiplied.

The President wrongly claimed he cut the growth of discretionary spending. Reality: the growth rate multiplied.

A Cato Institute analyst wrote Jan. 23 calling the increase "The Republican Spending Explosion," and said discretionary spending increases signed by Bush — once adjusted for inflation — "are 3 of the 10 biggest annual increases in the last 40 years."

Who controlled both houses (the House of Reps and the White House) in 2001?

The 2001 budget was written in 2000, not 2001. It was the last Clinton Budget.

Robert108, you're exactly right.

I could deal with "earmarks" if the entire spending situation were kept under budget.

That is if each elected official were given a certain amount of money (for the size of the state) to designate. The problem I see is that the whole process is grab as much as you can.

If earmarks are eliminated the Congress will find other ways to distribute pork such as lobbying each agency for their pet projects.

Frankly I think the elected representatives should have some say on how the money is spent. It must be eliminated and subject to scrutiny.

Carrick:

Agree with that. The problem is entitlements. However with the Democrats in lock-step and the Old-Partisan Media practicing mediscare techniques we aren't going to reform entitlements.

IMO Social Security was the best chance as it really is our money for our benefit. However the Republicans in Congress were somewhat lukewarm supporting the change with the Demoncrats in obstruction mode.

I really don't know what the political fix is.

Rob:

Meaning that we all like to talk tough about cutting spending until we're talking about cutting spending we like or take advantage of.

That's definitely true. Although earmarked money goes to things like road improvements, technology transfer from universities to businesses, etc, so in the long run, it isn't even to our advantage to cut them to zero.

The argument goes like this, who is more qualified to determine what needs improved in your state, your senator or the entire congress, or for that matter, a highly bureaucratic federal agency?

The congressman himself does not make the decisions where to spend their portion of the discretionary budget allotted to their state, rather they have staffers who are experts in different areas, who report to them and make recommendations. These staffers in turn, get feedback from business leaders and intelligencia in their distict as to which are "burning" issues. Based on seniority level, which committees the congressman is on, etc, he then can place more or less earmarked money for these specific programs.

If he fails to fix the "burning issues" he gets blamed for it and voted out of office. Thus there is already a self-correction mechanism for earmarked funds. Keep in mind, if you relegate it to e.g., the federal DOT, EPA, DOE etc., you likely will never see a dime of that money, which likely will get spent on based primarily on the regional administrator's interests and pet peeves.

Put another way, while not perfect, earmarked funds are a strange example of distributed government. The opposite, federal agency spending, typically is more bureaucratic and centralized (the USDA is an exception).

Gents and Ladies,

Look back at the 44 entries to this comment thread. Courtesy, reasoned argument, well thought out. If our congress only did what happens here we would have real government.

That's why I love this blog so much. Kudos to all, you can be proud.

Thanks from me for your humanity and well mannered behavior. It gives me hope for the future.

Perhaps the internet is how governing will happen in the future with good people like this.

Who knows. Maybe we are seeing the future.

Couldn't be worse than what is Washington now.