Big Spender

When Bush 43 ran in 2000, I naively believed "compassionate conservatism" meant as a conservative, we hold certain core beliefs: lower taxes, pro-life, strong military, fewer government programs and as a result, less government. The "compassionate" part of that label meant that we would encourage individual participation in our pusuit of answers to our problems: we want to encourage people in lower economic classes to succeed so we provide more small business opportunities through low interest loans and tax incentives, school choice and greater not-for-profit opportunities. Perhaps "compassionate conservatism" was 43's remodeled "thousand points of light" from 41. It hasn't turned out that way.

Bob Novak takes a look at this year's spending bill and it's big.

Nearly the entire federal government would be funded by an omnibus appropriations bill to be unveiled today after covert negotiations. In subsequent parliamentary maneuvering likely to extend all through this week, Democrats will pare the spending level to the maximum demanded by President George W. Bush in order to avoid a veto. Republicans will declare victory. In fact, they are in retreat.

As the minority party in Congress, the GOP will have less than 24 hours to read the massive bill before it comes up for a House vote on Tuesday. While at least coming close to the Bush limit, the bill will be passed over Republican opposition because it contains no Iraq war funding. It then will go the Senate on Wednesday, where Republicans will use their filibuster threat to insert money for Iraq. Overall spending will be reduced to the Bush standard in the Senate by means of an across-the-board cut.

This solution is designed to win bipartisan support because it will contain the earmarks for pork barrel spending back home dearly desired on both sides of the aisle. It became clear a week ago that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was in negotiation with Majority Leader Harry Reid for a bill to finance multiple new earmarks by means of across-the-board reduction in government programs. What's more, a little rules chicanery will hide an estimated 12,000 new earmarks, including pork that previously had not been passed by any chamber and is "airdropped" into the bill. The wily legislators have found a way to get around new ethics rules that require disclosure of all such spending.

From my blog entries, it should come as no surprise that I'm in favor of the Iraq war. It may not work, but then again it might and our options in that region are limited.

My dissatisfaction with Bush comes largely on the domestic side. No Child Left Behind has left education in a worse state than when he entered office; the temporary steel subsidies were a bad idea; increasing the health care budget is a big mistake (how about allowing Americans to purchase medicine from Canada and Mexico - that would cut down on the cost of medicine). The list goes on. He's an expensive president. And we don't want a social insurance program that looks like Europe or we're apt to wind up like Europe.