Politics of spending

Thank God Election Day 2007 is finally behind us. Now we can forget about all the city council members and mayors we just elected and return our focus to national politics. \nPresident Bush gave a speech in New Albany, Ind., on Tuesday, probably about as close as national politics will get to Bloomington unless we snag that presidential debate for next year. He decided to use that venue to espouse his newly discovered obsession with fiscal discipline.\nBush passed plenty of entitlement programs of his own, including the Medicare Act of 2003, and he failed to reform any of the previously-existing programs that gobble up increasing amounts of the federal budget. Despite all this, he recently vetoed a proposal to expand a highly popular scheme that subsidized health insurance for poor children, and another of his vetoes was overridden for the first time when he attempted to block a $23 billion water-projects authorization. So far, Bush has busted out the veto pen five times this year – incredibly often for his presidency. \nHis sudden change of heart is not difficult to explain. Although he is certainly concerned about his own legacy, he is also trying to deal with the fact that with some polls predicting a Democratic sweep of the 2008 House, Senate and White House, the smart money is flowing to the Democrats. A recent Wall Street Journal poll showed that only 37 percent of professionals and managers identify themselves as Republicans or leaning that way and a YouGov/Polimetrix poll found that only 44 percent of those earning more than $150,000 a year plan to vote Republican in the next election. What is the world coming to?\nIt might be coming to its senses. Despite their appetite for expanding certain programs, Democrats instituted “pay-go” rules, which mean that any new spending must be fully funded and for the most part, stuck to. One of Clinton’s most popular accomplishments during his presidency was turning our budget deficit into a surplus, something he accomplished partially through welfare cuts. \nThe truth of the matter is that we shouldn’t get sucked into the current president’s hype when he talks about his spending conflicts with Congress. In his speech on Tuesday he talked about his rejection of a $606 billion bill to pay for education, health and labor programs, but he was also greeted with applause when he announced that he signed a defense spending bill. \nThe ideology of a weak central government that doesn’t disturb the status quo is strongly entrenched in both parties; neither is likely to spend our government into oblivion anytime soon. Both parties usually attack each other’s spending habits for political reasons – Democrats want you to believe all that money spent in Iraq could have somehow saved an inner-city school, and Republicans would have you think a stronger surge could turn Iraq into a stable, full-fledged democracy by the time the game starts tomorrow. Both are fantasies. \nDon’t believe this president or any other politicians when they say they are only trying to protect your wallet.