Have things really gotten that bad? → U.S. citizens aren’t rising to the challenge → no functioning opposition party → neither party opposes government bloat

I keep harping on the sad fact that when it comes to important issues like U.S. belligerence, we might as well not have a functioning opposition party. It’s sad to note that when it comes to big government bloat the problem is the same.

Andrew Sullivan watched the Republican convention and notes:

[C]onservatism as we have known it is now over. People like me who became conservatives because of the appeal of smaller government and more domestic freedom are now marginalized in a big-government party, bent on using the power of the state to direct people’s lives, give them meaning and protect them from all dangers. Just remember all that Bush promised last night: an astonishingly expensive bid to spend much more money to help people in ways that conservatives once abjured. He pledged to provide record levels of education funding, colleges and healthcare centers in poor towns, more Pell grants, seven million more affordable homes, expensive new HSAs, and a phenomenally expensive bid to reform the social security system. I look forward to someone adding it all up, but it’s easily in the trillions. And Bush’s astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the “tax-and-spend” candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. At this point, however, it isn’t just chutzpah. It’s deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government.

Jacob Sullum of Reason too, notes that at the convention, “calls for cutting government and praise of the free market were conspicuous mainly by their absence.”

If it weren’t clear from their performance in Congress and in the White House, it would be clear from their platform that the Republicans have given up on reducing government even as an aspiration. The best they can do is assert that “our leaders must make sure that the growth of the federal government remains in check.”

Notice how, even in a document full of wishes that will never come true, the Republicans have resigned themselves to the inevitable growth of Leviathan. Notice, too, that they seem to think the government’s expansion is already “in check”; despite a 25-percent increase in federal spending , all they need to do is stay the course.


Isn’t it cute when Democratic legislators get all gussied up in their best rhetoric and go out on the town? Witness Representative Ellen Tauscher:

Republicans in Congress have stacked the deck on today’s fiscally irresponsible supplemental spending bill: forcing members to either appear unpatriotic or support a cash-cow bill stuffed with pork projects that fail to either help our troops or meet any “emergency” need.

The Majority leadership is engaging in a heinous trend: using America’s fighting men and women as human shields to pass this pork-laden legislation.

Gotta like that. Of course, when it came time to put her vote where her mouth was, Representative Tauscher joined 142 of her Democrat colleagues in the House and voted for the pork and the war that comes with it.


Here’s another sign that libertarians — even the traditionally Republican-leaning paleocon variety — may be turning their backs on the Republican Party and its Dubya Squad and looking for alliances elsewhere. I never thought I’d hear anything like this from the Cato Institute (and certainly not from the Heritage Foundation):

Economists at an tax reform forum at the National Press Club in Washington said that because GOP leadership in Washington has belied its “smaller government” rhetoric, consideration of fundamental revenue changes necessary to address serious fiscal challenges will likely take place when Democrats are in charge.

At a roundtable discussion on whether the tax reform debate should be broadened to address overall government financing, panelists from the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, two groups with strong conservative ties, criticized Republican leadership for increasing the size of government.…

According to panelist Bill Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, the debate over increasing revenues to address long-term fiscal challenges should not take place , “when Democrats control one house of Congress, or , when they’re very likely to be elected president.”…

“I think the current Bush administration is one of the worst administrations in my adult lifetime,” Niskanen said.…

Panelist Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, agreed that GOP leaders have not stuck to their fiscally conservative roots, and he was pessimistic there would be fundamental reform anytime soon.

“Having complete Republican control has not been a good thing,” he said.