Forget the fratricidal warfare between two establishment soldiers so harmonious on substance that their contest, inevitably, has descended into a poisonous, personal food-fight. The problem is not the GOP infighting. The problem is the GOP. Republicans are simply not interested in limiting government or addressing our death spiral of spending.
My weekend column was about the dog-and-pony show that congressional Republicans just put on to snow you into thinking they oppose the $2.4 trillion debt-ceiling increase they actually approved only six months ago. Now, get ready for House Republicans to unveil their $260 billion transportation bill.
Advertisement
The federal government should not be in the transportation business at all. A federal role was rationalized in the mid-Fifties to finance the construction of interstate highways. As National Review’s editors observed in 2005, that project was completed in the early Eighties, at which time the fuel tax that funded it should have been repealed and the upkeep of highways left to the states. “Instead,” they wrote, “Congress morphed the program into a slush fund for some of its most indefensible pork-barrel spending.”
The cover story for this permanent spendathon is that we now have a national highway “system” that ought to be financed by its main users. “Systems” is the abracadabra chanted by the progressives who run both parties when they’re about to pick your pocket. We don’t have a highway “system.” We have 50 states, whose widely varying transit needs are best known, and can be best addressed, by the affected local communities.
Plus, see how easily a “highway system” morphs into a “transportation system.” The taxes that Leviathan confiscates from drivers, purportedly for road construction and maintenance, are actually redistributed to subsidize other forms of transit preferred by progressives — including walking. For that, you can thank Republicans. With a compassionate wink from President Bush, the Republican Congress enacted an obscene $286.5 billion transportation bill in 2005, assigning the act one of those precious Washington acronyms — SAFETEA-LU (who cares what it stands for?). The editors accurately described it as a “monstrosity of wasteful spending.”
SAFETEA-LU featured all the uglies that outraged voters into telling the GOP to take a hike in the 2006 and 2008 elections. These included Alaska’s infamous $250 million “Bridge to Nowhere,” one of the bill’s 6,376 earmarks totaling $24 billion — you know, the sorts of budget-busting recklessness Republicans promised us they’d sworn off in order to get elected in 2010.
One of SAFETEA-LU’s worst aspects — and that’s saying something — was that it blew to smithereens the premise that federal transportation spending must be limited to the federal fuel-tax receipts collected to pay for it. As Red State’s Ross Vought explains, the Republican Congress increased expenditures on transportation by a whopping 31 percent. As the pols well knew, that was leaps and bounds beyond what the fuel tax would generate, especially given that collections flag when spiking gas prices reduce driving.
Mr. McCarthy has put into crafted words exactly what I been thinking about the Republican party for years now. It just doesn't matter any longer which party is in control in Washington: the nation is speeding off the cliff of debt. With the Democrats the car is speeding at 90 MPH while with the Republicans it's only speeding at 85 MPH. But in either case, the car is going to fly off the cliff.
What's so sad is that it is so incredibly true. Arrogance, stupidity or just a complete contempt for ordinary people? Not sure, but probably all three.
I suspect that historians will point to this as the election cycle when the coalitions that made up the Republican Party fractured beyond repair. Two years after an historic movement to cut tax-and-spend policies drove it to victory, the party nominates once again a conventional big government Republican, repudiating the very movement that was the driving force in its turn-around.
We have had an uneasy coalition of social conservatives, economic conservatives, and practical managerial politicos for some time. The divide between the social and economic conservatives is not unbridgeable, but the managerial establishment reigns. The divide between them and the conservative wing has become bigger than the divide between Republicans and Democrats was up until the late '60s.
I decided three cycles ago I was no longer a Republican, though I would continue to work with Republicans who were actually conservative. I think a whole lot of others are about to join me. This simply cannot continue - and we cannot continue to be routinely denied any serious voice in the presidential races.
Totally agree. A Romney nominee crammed down our throats (bet on it) PLUS then he loses the general election (bet on it) = 'the end of the Republican Party as we know it', as millions of conservatives walk away to start their own third party, concentrating first at the community level, then state, then federal.
Longplay is also right, imo - Bye Bye, Miss American Pie.
I, too, totally agree. Just look at how many of our Republican candidates are willing to attack conservatives, but don't dare criticize Obama. McCain went after J.D. Hayworth in his senate reelection race in ways he never did when running against Obama. Romney is doing the same thing to Newt, but I'm sure he'll tone it down if he runs against Obama. in the special election in Nea York's 23rd district a few years ago, Dede Scozzafava backed the Democrat after she lost to the conservative in the primary (actually, I believe she dropped out because she was obviously going to lose the primary). It happens over and over. Establishment Rebublicans hate conservatism as much as liberals do! They like Romney because they know he won't rock the boat and will maintain the status quo in Washington.
Conservatives will never be able to take the reins of government until they first take control of the Republican Party. All those state party apparatchiks, state government functionaries, and pseudo aristocratic members of Congress, they are the ones who give us the Doles, Bushes, McCains and Romneys.
Progressives are drawn to government. Conservatives are just the opposite.
When the Palins, Jindals, Thompsons and Rubios actually lead the party, as they did in 2010, conservatives make big gains. But when they fade into the background and allow the establishment to run the nomination process, as they have this election cycle, it kills the enthusiasm of real conservatives, and all but guarantees victory for progressive Republicans.
Hmmm. The same Rubio that just delivered the most populace county in Florida to Romney? That Rubio?
Me thinks you don't know Marco too well. He may be a conservative in word, but not in deed. You should check his record. I don't think you will like what you find.
I agree. The enemy of change is the change agent who arrives too early and merely relieves the building pressure before it can explode the status quo. I don't think you can micromanage the process, but I also fear that a Newt election would not allow much fundamental change to occur. Regardless, it may be another 4 years before the real changes to the GOP set in.
I think the number of people who really, truly want smaller government is very small. Most people just claim they want it, until their favorite program gets cut. Face it: democracy just doesn't work in the long term. We need to build a self destruct feature into the Constitution, where we start from scratch every 100 years or so.
You're not interested in limited government either Andrew. You support these huge defense budgets and all the wars. War is the health of the state. Government always gets bigger.
Andrew have you called for bringing the troops home from Europe, Japan, and Korea?? All wealthy countries capable of defending themselves. All we've been doing is subsidizing their welfare states.
You can always tell real conservatives from the phony ones over their willingness to cut defense. Shrink the military industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us about fifty years ago.
I agree with William. Lets not demagogue the defense isuse here. We can have a strong military built for defense of our nation if attacked without building semi-permanent presence in evey nation where terrorism exists or is suspected. NATO and the UN unfortunately arent able to do the security functions tasked to it but we dont necessarily have to fill that void just "b/c we can". Trimming govt should include all these: federal depts (transportation, education), overseas wars should be limited and Constituional (declaring war with stated goals and purposes), tax refom, etc.
Where do you get the idea that he would want a leviathan government? Why do so many conservatives believe that if you want to cut the military you must necessarily believe in growing the rest of government?
It ALL has to be cut. Entitlements must be cut the most, and many government burreaucracies, agencies and departments should be cut completely. Regulations should be mostly left to the states and spending must go down. In addition to that, our defense budget is too big because much of it goes to things that are unrelated to actual defense. The purpose of the Department of Defense is to preserve American sovereignty. It is not to preserve the sovereignty of other nations or fight their wars for them. It is not to act as the de facto defense of Europe or parts of Asia. It is not to free the oppressed in other nations from their oppressors. It is not to act as the facilitator in cases of domestic or foreign natural disasters. It is not to prevent anti-American leaders from coming to power in other nations.
Yes, the military must be cut, and not just in small ways. We need to change the whole role our military has in the world to one whose only role is protecting the USA. Having allies is wonderful but we don't expect our allies to provide for our national defense and they have no business expecting us to provide for theirs.
To play devil's advocate, if the states pick up the stuff you want cut from the fed, ultimately, our tax burdens will remain the same or possibly go up. There are things that simply must be done. If you push more to the state level there will be significant duplication -- overall government spending within the nation will go up, not down, and the tax burden will likely be higher for nearly everyone. States do not collect anywhere near enough revenue to maintain some things and as such will increase their taxes. Some states that position themselves as 'business friendly' with limited business taxes or no income tax will no longer be able to have that position.
It's one country, not 50. States are regional authorities, not sovereign countries loosely banding together. We tried that, and it failed.
Transportation is an example. If states, who already maintain responsibility for intrastate roadways, rails, and public transportation services, are forced to work on interstate highways, rail, and public transportation services, the costs for these items in the aggregate is likely to go up.
I agree with you on the military. Our overspending is ridiculous - our spending was likely too high in 2000 and after the 9/11 attacks we've more than doubled that. We can be smarter and cheaper and still maintain presence where we need to -- for economic protection reasons.
Everything is balance. Absolutism doesn't ever work.
"There are things that must be done." Sure, but doing them doesn't require the federal government or even state governments much of the time. This line of argument goes hand in hand with "well, the money is going to be spent anyway." Nonsense.
Think of all that entitlement spending. Sure, someone has to pay the doctor. Why not the patient? What a novel idea that would be. Or his family? Or his private insurance pool? If you answer, "that's too expensive," you're not considering why it's so expensive in the first place: because government makes it so by subsidizing and adminstering so much of it, and because people don't exercise their own judgment about cutting back on medical services.
Someone has to pay for schooling. Why not parents, or local communities? Education doesn't have to mean a giant school with lots of physical plant and a bloated bureaucracy, teachers' unions, etc.
There is no good reason simply to assume that because people need or want certain kinds of services, they must be provided, subsidized, or administered by government.
This is the problem with the "establishment" line: there is no thought involved, just a boatload of unconsidered assumptions.
(And, no, for the record, we don't need a military of the current size and disposition, either.)
I hope my other general post appears soon enough for you to read it, because I have tried to put a historical perspective on this issue. These are INTERSTATE highways. Who uses the interstate highways? I don't think you fly everywhere; you probably go places by car and use the interstate because it is convenient. So does everyone else at one time or another. As I also point out in my post, nearly 70% of goods are transported and delivered by truck. Those trucks are using the Interstate Highway System.
Do you make every interstate highway a toll road? Should every state just enact a sizable road user fee, to be charged to everyone who either lives in a state or who enters the state for whatever reason? Who should bear the burden of the costs of maintaining, expanding, or improving interstate highways? Will putting that additional burden on either the general public or the trucking industry (the truckers also pay additional fees to states for oversized or overweight trucks right now) have any adverse economic impacts that we'd like to know about? These are questions I used to grapple with in my former job, where I had experience dealing with both the state government and Federal government on a regular basis. It is not a question of "want." It is a simple fact of we have these roads, people use them because it is convenient and economically efficient, and the Federal government created them, for better or for worse. The Federal government has to bear a share of financial responsibility for their continuance.
