I am very disappointed in President Bush and all elected members of Congress. I live in the Greatest Country on Earth, and I expected better. Much better. Let me explain.
Congress was spurred from their mind-numbingly deliberative process (read: tortoise-paced progress) in July by the Roberts nomination and their impending August recess. In order to clear the docket for the fall, and to finally vote on long-gestating legislation (read: to get something done), many bills were hurried into passage directly before they jetted home to their districts for five weeks.
The highway bill is maybe the most egregious. Loaded with more pork than a luau crawl, the bill ended up costing much more than the president wanted, and much more than is fiscally responsible. Bush took the extraordinary step (for him) of threatening to veto any final amount over $256 billion. The bill came in at $286.5 billion and Bush signed it wearing a huge, shit-eating grin.
Transportation bills are renewed every six years, so this money is allocated from now until 2009 (this is the 2003 bill, just passed two years late). The money comes from an 18-cent/gallon tax we pay at the pump. The bill contains more than 6,000 special projects for individual Congressional members (a.k.a. pork). Thanks to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Minority Whip both representing Illinois, we ranked third among all states in allocated monies. Alaska was number one with only three representatives in Congress, but they are very powerful. One senator is the president pro tem of the Senate and Alaska’s lone congressman is chairman of the House Transportation Committee.
I’m not against paying for new roads or replacing others, or building bridges and paying for transportation needs. I’m proud that America has such a great interstate highway system (thanks to Eisenhower) and the best quality roads in the world. I’m a big believer in baptism by road-trip.
What I’m railing against is the wasting of money. Not only are we running a deficit right now, and we’re the bitch of countries like China that hold our debts, but we are facing an oil crisis. While we’ve had way worse oil crises before, $3 a gallon is nothing to scoff at. More than that though is the sheer amount of ridiculous funding approved in this bill. Among the worst: Alaska’s Congressman got a $315 million bridge, as long as the Golden Gate and taller than the Brooklyn, to connect the tiny town of Ketchikan (pop: 8,000) to the even tinier Gravina Island (pop: 50). The bridge will replace a 7-minute ferry ride. What a waste!
It seems to me that any project not related to interstate travel or interstate anything should be billed to the state and not the federal government.
In Chicago, almost $1 million went to the Chicago Children’s Museum at Navy Pier, for a transportation exhibit. Please, someone, explain this me. What an egregious use of our money.
And this is just the highway bill. They also passed new energy legislation. The media can only cover so much, so I ask myself, what was hidden in the weeds?
The Republicans are supposed to be the ones fighting against this type of spending. Historically, the GOP is against excessive taxes and big government. Could have fooled me. I suppose that when money is involved, everyone is corruptible.
9 comments:
When the big corporate donors (automotive, trucking, energy, defense) are at the receiving end of such Federal spending, the GOP is pro-egregious dispensation.
When social programs, foreign aid, and conservation projects that hold no lobbyist weight or reciprocal back-scrathing, the GOP is all for letting the taxpayers "keep what's theirs" and preventing "big government."
Besides, the fiscal lunacy of this administration shouldn't be much of a mystery to us anymore.
That came off as a tad too cynical, didn't it? Oh well, that's how debates get rolling.
Ok,
So how about truly letting the taxpayers "keep what's theirs".
Go conservatarian.
We pay one of the lowest tax rates among developed nations, yet Republicans stereotypically bemoan any hint of a tax increase, as either unfair or unnecessary. It's ludicrous.
In terms of letting Americans "keep what's theirs," we already do.
While I'm all for fiscal sensibility and a balanced budget, the answer doesn't lie in lower taxes. It lies in more appropriate spending.
For instance, how about limiting defense spending? Everyone would do well to visit this website: http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajority/run/oreo?rd=436
Do that and you can improve education spending. The jokingly weak "No Child Left Behind" Act annually allocates roughly the same amount as the overall advertising assault of $11.2 billion by the food, beverage, candy and restaurant industries on our children, teens and young adults.
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0508220133aug22,1,6598322.story)
We should invest more into renewable energies -- which in the long term can save us unfathomable amounts.
And we should invest more into foreign aid. A nice peripheral of such generosity, arguably, is the prospect for fewer terrorist recruits.
I'm right there with conservatives upset with the taxman. But that's because of where's it's going, not why it's being taken.
Well, I'm done ranting.
By the by, the Jeff that has commented on this post was not the owner of the blog. I don't think there is still confusion as to which of the many Jeffs is commenting, but when it comes to political trains of thought, it might be clearest to identify oneself without confusion. So that was JP, and I will sign mine JG.
I'm glad that someone's coming to my blog....
JP (1st comment): I think that those typically Democratic interest groups are not at such a disadvantage as you think. They absolutely have immense lobbying capabilities. The only difference is that they aren't in lie with the current majority. If 40 votes meant much, they'd be pigs in shit.
And it was my opinion in the post that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Whomever is in control will thumb the scales in his favor, but they shouldn't. The Republicans are, in 2005, misleading, sneaking, etc., when it comes to getting what they want in legislation. It's abhorrent, but there are many -- though not a majority -- Republicans who are as sickened with the practice and abstain. The same is true of Democrats when they were and are in power. It's simply a power pendulum.
Eric: Sounds like an idea I can get onboard with. But, of course, there must be caveats. I'm not for -- and don't know if you are -- elimination of the IRS, or no tax at all, but a wholesale restructuring of the tax system -- and by extension budget system -- that makes things fairer and less liable for corruption.
Jeff (Comment 2): I am not for any tax increases. But I am for a radical alteration in the way we spend our tax base. We really have to take a cold hard look at everything we spend a dime on and see how things can be bettered. We may pay a low tax rate comparatively (I don't know that), but we also waste a hell of a lot of it. So if we don't waste it so much, we won't have to have any increases, or so the theory goes.
In principle, I'm for low taxes, but practically, in today's world, I'm fine where it's at, assuming the aforementioned examination takes place.
As for defense spending, I think we absolutely need to truly evaluate what we spend. Except that will never happen in public because some of the Pentagon's funds are secret -- even from Congress. I am not so sure that a missile defense system, that has never worked, and might never be needed, is the best way to drain money from the treasury. I am all for a defense system against future strong enemies, but it appears that with yesterday and today's technology, Reagan's missile defense system is not cost-efficient. Maybe put it on the back-burner for 10+ years and wait for better tech. And we also should not be funding our wars through supplemental bills. It is no longer an emergency, and should be actually budgeted. It's not like it will not pass... no one's going to reject a budget at least because they fear they'll be painted as anti-troops.
As for the No Child Left Behind act: you were out of the country so it's expected that you missed it -- hell every paper I checked buried it deep in other sections -- but the test scores came in and the plan is actually working. The minority gaps are quickly closing and the reading and math scores of America's youth are on the rise. The seventeen year olds remained the same, though. An argument against "teaching the test" might be applicable, but if the next results are like this, it will appear that the plan gets results.
And I'm not as confident about foreign aid as an Ace bandage as you are. I will delve into this in later posts, because I'm not finished with a book I want to refer to. But foreign aid barely works as intended now, so I don't think there's much use out of legally bribing other countries to be nicer to us. I know that's not totally what you meant, but it's essentially what some people are saying.
Lastly, I'm with you on new energy sources. I heard today Bush did something in this realm, but forgot to look it up. I will now.
JG
Why should I invest in new energy sources? When the government "invests", they mean, Eric, Jeff G, other Jeff, we're taking some of your income to figure this out. The government sucks at doing just about anything!!! Private industries are coming up with solutions right now. First one to come up with an inexpensive, renewable energy source will make a lot of money. And they'll get there a lot of faster than the insiders we pay to do it.
no child left behind act - ok, it's working, high schoolers are finally becoming literate. Terrific. It's still costing us around $6,000 a year per student to do that.
Private schooling, home schooling, anything but government schooling.
Final thought, what should we all chip in for as Americans? 30% approx. of our income is going to fund miscellanous programs, defense, the salaries of our represenatives. What should we all pay for? any thoughts?
32% of my paycheck is taken. that's way too fucking high. i'm literally paying enough to support another person living the kind of lifestyle i lived at U of I for the last 6 years. Oh, except this person doesn't have to work.
but philips is right. spending has to be cut first. here's a quick way to save a chunk of change: let most of the 'criminals' out of jail. legalize drugs and stop paying a buttload of money to house and feed potheads. i think most of our generation can agree on that one. i mean, eventually we can get rid of welfare, social security, medicaid, and public schooling. but, hey, why not start small?
i don't know if i know this sabai guy, but i like him.
Post a Comment