George Bush and the Earmarks of the New Congress
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published January 3, 2007, 4:33 pm in News, Economic Issues, Voting & Partisanship.
The new Democrat-led Congress begins tomorrow, and I can't wait to see what they do. Let's remember that they promised a lot of stuff in the first seven days, including raising the minimum wage. For more on this, see my previous column.
But George Bush has given us yet another preemptive strike. It's a favorite move of his, whether in Iraq to counter those illusive weapons of mass destruction or when dealing with our country's Democrats. When he sees a problem, he comes out ahead of time to try to squash it. His move today was masterful, yet another reason why this guy got elected. In politics, this much is true: if you say it first, you're the leader, the reformer, the one who started it all. So Bush gave a speech today and wrote a guest column for the Wall Street Journal saying it first. Let's look at the speech and figure out what he's doing with this preemptive strike. You can find the speech here.
He has decided to make the entire speech about economics, and this is an attempt to direct the new Congress. He begins with this: "One area where we must work together is that we've got to make sure we spend the people's money wisely." The rest of the short speech is about this same thing, expounding on his ideas of what it means to spend our money wisely. That is what Congress does, after all. They are paid by us to spend our money. Let's see how Bush wants to do it.
Tax Cuts
He goes directly from that statement to this one: "Over the past few years, pro-growth economic policies have generated higher revenues. Together with spending restraint, these policies allowed us to meet our goal of cutting the budget deficit in half three years ahead of schedule."
Sounds good, doesn't it? But just what is a "pro-growth economic policy"? That's another term for tax cut. And for pro-big business policies. That's what he means here. And those things combined with "spending restraint" have cut "the budget deficit in half three years ahead of schedule."
Wait, I think I had trouble following that. Did he really just say that cutting taxes and spending $200 million a day on a war in Iraq has cut the budget in half? How is that possible? It's true, though. The "half" part may be a bit misleading, but it's true that the budget went way down, accordind to the Washington Post: "But after reaching a record $413 billion in 2004, the budget deficit dropped to $248 billion in the 2006 fiscal year." Hey, great, but that was after a surplus of over $200 billion under Clinton. Remember when the fight was over what to do with the surplus. And then come the "don't tax and spend conservatives" and the deficit goes way up. That's not quite fair, though, because 9/11 did play a role there. We can't blame the Republicans for that, although there are plenty of people out there who do.
There are also plenty of economists out there who say that the tax cuts had little to do with boosting the economy. Instead, they cost lots of money with little return in economic benefit. But let's even forget about that for now.
Balancing the Budget
Instead, let's talk about how Bush will balance the budget: "Next month, I will submit a five-year budget proposal that will balance the federal budget by 2012. This budget will restrain spending while setting priorities. It will address the most urgent needs of our nation, in particular the need to protect ourself from radicals and terrorists, the need to win the war on terror, the need to maintain a strong national defense, and the need to keep this economy growing by making tax relief permanent."
That's right, you Democrats. Those are our priorities. Wait just a minute, though. Those are the Republican priorities, aren't they? The war on terror and tax relief? Are those really the two things I care about? Keeping me safe, you bet, but if the war on terror means staying and spending $200 million a day in Iraq (and let's remember that Bush constantly says that the war in Iraq is a part of the war on terror), then, well, I'm not so sure about that.
And tax relief is definitely not my priority. I don't like giving my money away, but if the government can do good things with it, then they should take it from me. It's what they do with it that matters. Let's not get into this right now, though, for I don't want my Libertarian friends up in arms quite yet.
I Am Entitled
And then there is a switch: "By balancing the budget through pro-growth economic policies and spending restraint, we are better positioned to tackle longer-term fiscal challenges facing our country, namely the entitlement programs." By "entitlement program," he means those things Americans see themselves entitled to, such as social security. But I'm still not quite sure how that transition works. So by balancing the budget, keeping our tax cuts, we can then reform social security? I don't really see the connection.
But Bush doesn't make us guess. He makes the connection plain: "These programs need to be reformed for the sake of younger Americans. We need to reform Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid so future generations of Americans can benefit from these vital programs without bankrupting our country."
Oh, okay. So we will keep our tax cuts and balance our budget by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Oh, now that makes sense, for it's a foolproof plan. Everyone always wonders how the Democrats will pay for everything they do, and that's a good question. But for Bush, it's a no brainer. Get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and you can pay for expensive tax cuts and an expensive war. No problem there. He's not actually saying we should get rid of them, though. He's talking about reform. But whatever that "reform" means, it's connected to saving our country money so that we won't go "bankrupt" (his phrase).
My Ear is Marked
And then there's another switch: "Another area where we can work together is to reform the earmark process. One important message we all should take from the elections is that people want to end the secretive process by which Washington insiders are able to get billions of dollars directed to projects, many of them pork barrel projects that have never been reviewed or voted on by the Congress."
Earmark: what a dirty word this has become. I agree that earmarks are bad. Bush is right, here, so I must give him his props. But his statement also upsets me. Why does the word earmark become bad now? Why not six years ago when he took office? This is the kind of preemptive strike that just rubs me the wrong way. My hands are burning as I write this. My teeth are clenched.
Bush is saying that the earmarks have to be stopped, and every American probably agrees with him. Every politician does it, too. No one is immune. Democrats and Republicans, they're both guilty. But Bush makes it an issue when Democrats come into Congress, not when Republicans ruled both houses. Why is this important?
Because earmarks help people get elected! They're the things that state politicians point to when asked what they have done over the past four or six years. Earmarks allow them to say, "I have brought in X business," or "I built X road," or "I saved X industry." He with the most earmarks wins in many cases. So Bush's statement now, when Democrats are in the majority, is an attempt to undermine them. It is his move to keep Republicans in power. If the Democrats are seen as the do-nothing Congress, then the Republicans will be poised to seize power again.
And that just makes me mad. I know, I know. I probably wouldn't be as mad if a Democrat did it to a Republican, but it's still a rat move.
But it's smart. It's really smart. I nod to you, Mr. President, and to your strategists, and to your speech writers. You know what you're doing.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
Leave a comment