Just weeks before the elections, some Republicans are coming forward and saying: On budget management, Iraq, the War on Terror — It's A Mess!
Fiscal Management: The cost of the War on Terror since 9/11 through fiscal year 2006 is 437 billion. Of that 437 billion the Iraq War has cost 330.4 billion. The federal cost for Katrina 130 billion, of 200 billion estimated by 2009. Total federal allocation for 9/11 recovery, 20 billion.
That is a total federal outlay for Katrina, 9/11 recovery, and the war on terror of: 437 + 130 + 20 = 587 Billion dollars or, a little over 1/2 trillion dollars. The National Debt in 2001 when Bush came into office was about 5.65 trillion. Current National Debt 5 years later is 8.5 trillion. In other words, the national debt has grown by 3 trillion but the total cost of Katrina, War on Terror, and 9/11 has only cost 0.58 trillion. So where did the other 2.43 trillion dollars of deficit spending go?
Sen. Enzi (R) said on Sept. 27, "The American people are tired of overspending." The Republicans ran for election in 2000 and 2004 on the twin issues national security and fiscal responsibility. Republicans have increased the national debt by 2.43 trillion dollars after excluding the emergencies cited above. This is not fiscal responsibility. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) speaking on June 14, 2006 about the Gregg proposal for restraining spending said it "will bring spending under control in 4, 5, or 6 years, which we must do".
Is Sen. Alexander serious? Is he really asking the voters to give Republicans another 4, 5, or 6 years to get spending under control, after wasting 2.43 trillion dollars over budget already for non-emergency and wartime spending? This is absolutely ridiculous, and any voter who cares about fiscal responsibility has to be blind if they think this Republican Congress is being fiscally responsible.
Republican Sen. Coburn said in his amendment 4848 this year on defense spending, that "earmarks [are] partially responsible for emergency supplementals and rising debt. He goes on to say: "The amount earmarked as a percentage of the total in the defense appropriations bill has correspondingly increased from about 1.8 percent in 1994 to approximately 2.4 percent in 2006."
Earmarks are spending projects added to bills, (also known as pork spending), most of which have nothing to do with the purpose of the bill at hand. Under Republicans, pork spending has grown by estimates of as much as 600% across all spending bills. Democrats have been criticizing that a disproportionate share of pork approved is going to Republican dominated states. Given Congress' propensity to buy constituent votes with federal tax dollars costing the rest of Americans, it is a very plausible criticism, which Republicans would be launching at Democrats were they in control, no doubt.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
It is voter's responsibility and duty under our Constitution to vote out incumbents who are mismanaging the nation, voter's taxes, and citizen affairs
Pity you didn't post this before the primary when we could have had a chance to replace incumbents in both parties with worthy alternatives, rather than waiting until now when we have nothing but a choice between the incumbent and some mediocre party hack offered up against him.
Dave
2 - David R. Remer
Dave, I have been writing this in various ways since October of 2005 when I founded the PAC, VOID, Vote Out Incumbents Democracy. I only very recently became a writer for Blogcritics, but readers at my other sites have had the benefit of this advice for almost a year now. Better late than never, eh?
What you suggest is precisely what we advocate at VOID: That Republicans vote for challenger Republicans in the primaries, and Democrats vote for Democrat challengers in the primaries, and everyone else votes for any challenger they find most appealing.
In the end, with reelection rates dropping from the more than 90% average currently enjoyed, to the 60% or less range, politicians will respond to the voters as their first priority, and lobbyists, wealthy campaign donors, party power plays, and special interests will all take a back seat to solving more of the nation's problems than Congress creates.
3 - Joe
What a load of crud, you can't pin any label on republicans that democrats don't also proudly wear. That's where you're right on target, though, incumbancy comes too easy these days. These folks need to spend all their days fearing for their jobs, aching to do the voters bidding for fear of being run outta town.
4 - David R. Remer
Joe, its not a load of crud. Some problems you get with Democrats are different from those you get with Republicans. So, it's only half a load of crud. :-)
Seriously, either party in control will become corrupt, inept, and irresponsible if voters don't make reelection conditional on responsible results.
I left the Democratic Party many years ago because they had no sense of fiscal responsibility. After Reagan's lofty national debt levels, I couldn't go to the Republican Party either. So, as an Independent, I vote for whatever candidates offer the best record for solving problems, sticking to good governance principles like bi-partisanship, fiscal responsibility, and putting voters and the nation's concerns ahead of campaign financing, bribes from wealthy special interests and lobbyists, and who have a vision of American remaining strong in the world with far more friends and allies than enemies amongst the world's populations.
Regretfully, that narrows the selection down to just a few who come close. But, there is always the all important anti-incumbent vote which insures that my vote is never wasted or useless. It just awaits millions of other voters to awaken to the power of the anti-incumbent vote which our Constitution granted from the beginning.
5 - Realist
You speak for me as well, David R.! Carter's fiscal ineptitude is what separated me from the Democrats - and I've not been back since.
If the Democrats can demonstrate that they are not the classic Great Society spenders of the past, they might well get a hearing from fiscal conservatives - and maybe also their votes.
6 - Arch Conservative
If the Democrats can demonstrate that they are not the classic Great Society spenders of the past, they might well get a hearing from fiscal conservatives - and maybe also their votes."
Speaking as a fiscal and social conservative who is not all that happy with the current admin I can honestly tell you that as long as the Dems are the party of abortion on demand, higher taxes and more government, cowtowing to the UN and Europe, Clinton idolizing, anti-military, christian bashing and aclu loving I will NEVER vote for them.
Today's American left and democratic party has no redeeming value at all. Why do you think they couldn't muster a candidate to beat a president with sinking pollnumbers in the middle of a war that public opinion was against?
The "at least we're not the evil GOP " strategyu has worked wonders for the Dems in recent elections. I hope they keep it up.