Friday, May 27, 2005
Where have the REAL Republicans gone?
The United States Senate has just approved an extension of the current highway bill for one month moments ago since it cannot resolve the differences it has with the House.
As noted by the Club for Growth:
"the Senate passed a budget-busting, pork-infested highway bill. The proposal passed 89-11, but the president has threatened a veto of any bill that spends that much. The fight is far from over, as the president, the House and the Senate will have to resolve their differences before it becomes law...
President Bush originally proposed $256 billion for a six-year surface transportation bill - a whopping 21% increase over the last six-year bill. After Congress last year found it impossible to spend within the confines of that double-digit increase, the President unfortunately upped his offer to $284 billion in his FY06 budget. The House then passed a bill spending $284 billion, but with a provision to allow additional spending during the 6-year window. Not to be outdone when it comes to wasting the taxpayers' money, the Senate has passed a bill to spend $295 billion.
Transportation funding is among the worst examples of misspending and pork barrel politics. Congress earmarks thousands of individual projects, many of which have nothing to do with transportation. In the House bill alone there are more than 4000 such projects.
Examples include:
$3 million to renovate and expand the National Packard Museum and adjacent historic Packard facilities in Ohio; $500,000 to improve sidewalks, upgrade lighting, and add landscaping in downtown Glennville, Georgia; $4 million to plan and construct bike/pedestrian crossings of the Washington-Palmetto Canal in the vicinity of Xavier University in New Orleans, Louisiana; and $1.3 million to construct a recreational visitor center on the Mesabi Trail in the City of Virginia, Minnesota. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan vetoed a transportation bill because it had excessive earmarks. The bill contained less than 200 overall.
Why is it that the Republicans have ceased to be Republicans? Or, why is it that the Republicans, especially those in the Senate, continue to behave as if it is 1970s and that the Democrats are in control?
The "country-club" Republicans who do not want to get there hair mussed take too much of a lead from their (barely) counterparts in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom. This was evident again in the filibuster issue which would have allowed for straight up-or-down votes on President Bush's nominees to the federal bench. Heck, the filibuster should have been used to kill the highway bill.
The Democrats "won" the original filibuster/judicial nomination round by refusing to be collegial. In fact, their behavior, both threatened and real, resembles the type of political style found more often in the House of Commons... and anyone who knows about politics realizes that the House of Commons generally gets their way when confronting an issue opposed by the House of Lords. This may seem a bit "apples and oranges." but my point is that polite behavior often leads to political loss in the halls of Congress. Some Republicans need to learn from the scrappy members of the House of Commons as well as some of our more politically astute members of the Democrat Party on the Hill.
I applaud President Bush for threatening to veto this silly bit of legislation, but I also implore him (and Hill Republicans) to stand for Republican principles elsewhere especially as it applies to our borders and our national security. On this point, the news (even from sources sympathetic to the President) indicate that the major problem of terrorism (liberal term = insurgents) in Iraq is that terrorists organizations from around the world are sneaking into Iraq. The obvious conclusion is to tighten up the Iraqi borders which the military tried to do recently along the Syrian border in Operation Matador.
Jon E. Dougherty's Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.- Mexico Border does an excellent job of exploding the myth that border security is not a real problem in the United States. REAL Republicans understand that. Why doesn't the President? Why don't most of the Republicans?
As noted by the Club for Growth:
"the Senate passed a budget-busting, pork-infested highway bill. The proposal passed 89-11, but the president has threatened a veto of any bill that spends that much. The fight is far from over, as the president, the House and the Senate will have to resolve their differences before it becomes law...
President Bush originally proposed $256 billion for a six-year surface transportation bill - a whopping 21% increase over the last six-year bill. After Congress last year found it impossible to spend within the confines of that double-digit increase, the President unfortunately upped his offer to $284 billion in his FY06 budget. The House then passed a bill spending $284 billion, but with a provision to allow additional spending during the 6-year window. Not to be outdone when it comes to wasting the taxpayers' money, the Senate has passed a bill to spend $295 billion.
Transportation funding is among the worst examples of misspending and pork barrel politics. Congress earmarks thousands of individual projects, many of which have nothing to do with transportation. In the House bill alone there are more than 4000 such projects.
Examples include:
$3 million to renovate and expand the National Packard Museum and adjacent historic Packard facilities in Ohio; $500,000 to improve sidewalks, upgrade lighting, and add landscaping in downtown Glennville, Georgia; $4 million to plan and construct bike/pedestrian crossings of the Washington-Palmetto Canal in the vicinity of Xavier University in New Orleans, Louisiana; and $1.3 million to construct a recreational visitor center on the Mesabi Trail in the City of Virginia, Minnesota. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan vetoed a transportation bill because it had excessive earmarks. The bill contained less than 200 overall.
Why is it that the Republicans have ceased to be Republicans? Or, why is it that the Republicans, especially those in the Senate, continue to behave as if it is 1970s and that the Democrats are in control?
The "country-club" Republicans who do not want to get there hair mussed take too much of a lead from their (barely) counterparts in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom. This was evident again in the filibuster issue which would have allowed for straight up-or-down votes on President Bush's nominees to the federal bench. Heck, the filibuster should have been used to kill the highway bill.
The Democrats "won" the original filibuster/judicial nomination round by refusing to be collegial. In fact, their behavior, both threatened and real, resembles the type of political style found more often in the House of Commons... and anyone who knows about politics realizes that the House of Commons generally gets their way when confronting an issue opposed by the House of Lords. This may seem a bit "apples and oranges." but my point is that polite behavior often leads to political loss in the halls of Congress. Some Republicans need to learn from the scrappy members of the House of Commons as well as some of our more politically astute members of the Democrat Party on the Hill.
I applaud President Bush for threatening to veto this silly bit of legislation, but I also implore him (and Hill Republicans) to stand for Republican principles elsewhere especially as it applies to our borders and our national security. On this point, the news (even from sources sympathetic to the President) indicate that the major problem of terrorism (liberal term = insurgents) in Iraq is that terrorists organizations from around the world are sneaking into Iraq. The obvious conclusion is to tighten up the Iraqi borders which the military tried to do recently along the Syrian border in Operation Matador.
Jon E. Dougherty's Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.- Mexico Border does an excellent job of exploding the myth that border security is not a real problem in the United States. REAL Republicans understand that. Why doesn't the President? Why don't most of the Republicans?
