Moderate Republicans, tea baggers and Party extremists all share a common love of big government, against which they protest too much, methinks. All strongly support a vigorous national defense ($718 billion), Health and Human Services (including Medicare, $900 billion) and Social Security ($780 billion), which combine to a sum of $2.4 trillion out of a total federal budget of $3.8 trillion. The sum all of these government programs comprise 63% of the entire federal budget.
We have other conservative favorites, including: National Science Foundation ($ 6 billion), law enforcement, including border patrol ($60 billion), and farm subsidies ($17 billion) that mainly go to red states. Those total $83 billion.
Ah, but we are not done. The government is also shelling out $200 billion in interest payments on debt created under President Bush (taken from the budget of 2009). That brings total government spending that has widespread Republican backing to $3.2 trillion, out of a total budget of $3.8 trillion, or 84 percent. (All of these figures come from the Office of Management and Budget.)
Understand then that Republicans actively support and defend 84 percent of the big government they so thoroughly disdain. The GOP believes a budget of $3.2 trillion is virtuous but is outraged by a budget of $3.7 trillion. Even if Democrats supported 100 percent of the federal budget (they do not), gathering up righteous indignation about the remaining 14 percent hardly constitutes an ideological divide between big and small government.
But really the hypocrisy of the GOP position on big government is deeper than just the obvious inconsistency with budget dollars. Republicans rant about government interference as a tired campaign fixture ... until they call for government interference. After 9/11, the first Republican instinct was to expand the federal government. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security and the position of a new intelligence czar. Bush did not talk about small government when he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. The demand for small government comes quickly when public spending supports a Democratic agenda, but is swept swiftly under the rug whenever Republicans turn to the government for help.
Perhaps big government is acceptable only when issues of national security are at stake? No, the GOP position is nothing that principled. BP's tiny mishap in the Gulf proves the point. Conservatives who railed against environmental and safety regulations now demand that the federal government "do something," appealing ironically to the very institutions they seek to neuter. As oil oozes onto Gulf Coast beaches we see no Republicans chanting Reagan's favorite phrase, "government is part of the problem, not the solution." Facing catastrophe, the government is suddenly the solution after all. The phrase "there are no atheists in a foxhole" is nonsense (there are plenty), but the adage suggests something more interesting: "there are no conservative Republicans on an oil-stained beach."
As oil pours relentlessly into the sea, Republican Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has no problem "demanding" a stronger response from the federal government, the same federal government that he wants to leave him alone. The responding agencies would be those for which Jindal has previously had nothing but pious disdain as examples of the worst of government interference, including the Environmental Protection Agency. Let us remember what Jindal said in his response to Obama's first State of the Union Address:
"To solve our current problems, Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and not to just put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you, the American people. Because we believe that Americans can do anything." Perhaps that does not apply to BP's ability to stop the leak.
He went on to mock federal spending for programs like "the $140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring.'" We did not hear from Jindal after Iceland's spewing volcano disrupted global commerce for weeks and cost the airline industry hundreds of billions of dollars.
Sadly, Jindal is no anomaly of inconsistency; he has plenty of company. A Republican state senator from Alabama, Ben Brooks, said he expects an aggressive response from the federal government as BP continues to soil the ocean. In the next breath he said, "There's nothing inherently contradictory in saying we believe in smaller government and demanding that the government protect public safety." Yes. There. Is.
That is like me asserting that I see no contradiction in stating that I am an atheist but calling on god whenever the need arises. Brooks does not seem to understand the basic math that if you refuse to pay taxes to support a local fire station near your home, the fire trucks will not be nearby when flames start licking at your feet. Instead, Brooks believes the fire trucks should be standing by near his house at all times, but someone else should pay for that state of readiness. Through the looking glass we go.
Falling deeper down the rabbit hole, we see that the GOP's inconsistent and hypocritical response to the Deep Horizon disaster is just a drop in the oil plume. Lurking beneath the surface of accountability is a spreading ooze that hides a cabal of Republicans who publicly condemn federal spending while doing everything in their power to spend federal money. No better example of this exists than the deep contrast between Republican condemnations of Obama's stimulus package and their subsequent actions to grab as much of the money as possible.
Republicans loudly dismissed the stimulus package as Democratic excess while privately approving of the measure and working to ensure the funds flowed to their districts. After voting against the package, "You Lie" Joe Wilson (R-SC) said of locals who would use the stimulus money, "We know their endeavor will provide jobs and investment" in a letter to Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack pleading for a piece of the stimulus pie. Robert Bennett (R-UT) issued a public statement on February 13, 2009, harshly criticizing the plan; what he did not say is that two days prior, he also contacted Vilsack with a long list of projects he wished to fund with stimulus money. His plea included the statement that "I believe the addition of federal funds to these projects would maximize the stimulative effect of these projects on the local economy." Even by the low standards of politics, this level of deceit and willful disregard for dignity is astonishing.
And we come full circle back to Jindal. The governor proudly assumed the title of fiscal conservative in rejecting on principle some (not all) federal stimulus money. Then with the unabashed hypocrisy only possible in politics, he distributed the stimulus funds he did not reject by proudly handing out federal money to local officials. To make matters worse, if that is possible, Jindal used oversized cardboard checks like you see on creepy television commercials for winners of the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes.
So how did Republicans respond as the stimulus money they publicly vowed to fight but secretly sought hit the streets? Before we answer that question, remember that Obama's stimulus package passed without one single Republican vote in the House and only three in the Senate (one of whom, Arlen Specter, later switched parties). So now the answer: Republicans shamelessly took credit for the success of the stimulus package to which they so violently objected. The worst hack of a fiction author could not make this stuff up. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) called the package a "large-scale failure." Yet within a few weeks of that assessment he lauded the program as "critical" to residents of Frankford, MO, who benefited from grants of $330,000 and $313,900. He also requested $100 million for Missouri road projects. Eric Cantor (R-VA), House Republican Whip, sponsored a job fair that, ironically, consisted of jobs created by the stimulus package he voted against. More than a dozen Republicans submitted requests to the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service, pleading for stimulus dollars. The most egregious example of talking out of both sides of one's mouth comes from Geoff David (R-KY) who sent out a press release claiming the stimulus package "failed." But that same day he proudly took credit for $1 million from the stimulus program for Carroll County schools, noting that "I am pleased that our office was able to assist them in obtaining these funds."
So, finally, let us be crystal clear: Republicans absolutely love big government. Republicans supposed disdain for big government is an Orwellian Big Lie advanced to obscure the opposite reality. The GOP has demonstrated consistently a great fondness for an intrusive federal government with unfettered powers. The budgets proposed by Reagan, Bush I and Bush II created record deficits and debts. Reagan proposed the largest tax hike in U.S. history, and expanded non-military government payroll to an extent that put all of his predecessors to shame. Republicans want the federal government to define whether two people in love can marry or not; they want the government in the doctor's office when a woman seeks advice on reproductive rights; they blindly support suspension of habeas corpus and weakening of Miranda (and concomitantly strengthening government prosecutors). They want the government in our classrooms to diminish evolution; they want government in our universities to prevent stem cell research. They approve of the government sanctioning torture and trampling civil liberties.
The GOP simply uses the philosophical convenience of promoting small government to justify spending on programs they support under the misdirection of exaggerated claims of fiscal and regulatory constraint. But facts tell a different story. This emperor has no clothes.
Since Democrats do not support every federal program, the divergence between the two parties on the philosophy of spending only differs by something close to 10 percent. Mounting the high horse of indignity and wrapping the GOP in the mantle of fiscal conservative is nothing but political theater with no basis in reality. Any disinterested observer would be hard pressed to distinguish between one Party that approved of a budget soaring to $3.8 trillion compared to another Party that smugly approved "only" $3.2 trillion as an example of fiscal responsibility.
The GOP concept of fiscal constraint is opting for suede in place of leather in their Rolls Royce. The Republican platform calling for small government is transparently and patently ridiculous in light of their profligate spending, long history of expanding federal powers and immediate appeal for federal assistance as soon as disaster strikes. The GOP is all for the Government's Omniscient Power to control our lives and spend our money, as long as they control the purse strings. The next time you hear a Republican claim he is for small government, bend over laughing. No other response would be appropriate.
Jeff Schweitzer is a scientist, former White House senior policy analyst and author of, Beyond Cosmic Dice: Moral Life in a Random World . Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Facebook.
Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffSchweitzer
New GOP TV ad blasts Quinn, Blagojevich
Cameron: We must make deep cuts or the people will suffer
We want Obama to fix Everything that Nobody else has done Anything about for the last eight years--and we want him to do it without spending any more money. Have I got that right?
Our new Tea Party mayor rants and raves about the EPA getting into town business (by forcing the town to replace it's antiquated sewer system), big government taking over, taxes are too high, yadda, yadda, yadda. Then it rains. The streets are flooded. Raw sewage gets into the drinking water, etc. Then listen to these same tea baggers (who whine incessantly at the whooping $5/month rate hike in their water bill to pay for the repairs) rant and rave about the flooded streets, loads of chlorine in the water, boil water alerts and why aren't the feds sending in more money to fix the sewer system faster. It would be really funny if it weren't so aggravating.
(so sayeth the GOP song),
for if ever they fail
you just sit back and wail
that the government fix takes too long.
Republicans luv big gubmint, as long as it benefits Republicans and corporations.
Amen and well said, in fact, extremely well said. I have been saying the very same thing since Bush took office.
In the 12yrs when Reagan and Bush41 were in office they quadrupled the debt. In the eight years Bush/Cheney were in office they tripled the debt, again. Who pays that debt plus all of the Interest on that debt, the taxpayer, "We the people" do.
It was GWB who co-opted and suborned some Big Religions into becoming the Religious Right and using them to perpetrate his GOP/Reagan Trickle-down economic beliefs. He used taxpayer dollars and gave it to Big Religion---Repubs always use our tax dollars for their Big Business welfare programs--- when he created his Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives. OF Course, the pope(my religion), the Mormons and the Evangelical fundamentalists(not all Evangelicals, please) did not object to all of that money, our tax dollars. America is the nation of Big Business fascism AND now, Big Religion fascism.
The religious thing was done with the full cooperation and at the behest of those specific Big Religions.
Methinks, screaming hypocrisy abounds in the Rethug party, and among their Theocons, the Religious Right.
At least the Dems, once in a while, try to do something for the taxpayer, "we the people". While the Repubs are always using our tax dollars for their Big Businesses and for their super rich friends, the 1%. And how well has that worked out? NOT at all.
The Repubs and Tea Party are for a smaller less intrusive government,,,, This is the one area government should have been in the first place , but all we get are Obama snippets and Liberal talking points and the obligatory name calling at the GOP
As I recall, not many were protesting anything back in October of 2001. At that time most people just wanted to find those who attacked the US and make them pay. Unfortunately, many were not paying attention to congress and the ramifications of passing a bill such as the patriot act. But, like many with the passing of TARP and the bailouts I began to grow more wary of the government role in our economy and have since began paying more attention to what's going on.
I see the tea party as a group trying to raise awareness in our government's actions. And they want to see the government doing a better job than it is and has. As I said below "I personally would like to see a better job by all governments (state, local and federal) in eliminating fraud and waste prior to asking me for more money or to fund new programs. Get the house in order first, and if there is still a need for additional funding, then we can talk."
BTW - someone as accomplished as you should provide better comments then this or the one to me. I've read some of your stuff, you can do much better than rhetorical one liners.
I think Jeff is thinking of the NBC/MSNBC that now has Olbermann and Madow.
But I get your meaning. They hired Olbermann in the August of 2006, when they saw the writing on the wall. At that time Scarborough and Russert toned down their hate, a bit, for us libs/progs and Dems. He must have gotten the word from the powers-that-be. NBC/MSNBC is owned by GE, I call them the Irish mafia.
Other than Scarborough, they are all Irish Catholics. I'm Catholic, but not their kind of Catholic. I abhor that kind of Catholic, they are very often full of hate for others and other religions, especially Pat Buchanan, George Weigel, Monahan, Donohue, etc. They are among the biggest haters of everyone else who is not just exactly like them, and few are. Read Sr. Joan Chitester and Karin Armstrong, on this site and others, for my kind of Catholic. We're out there, we really do exist.
Sad to say, but Catholicism really creates people like them because it panders to their white superiority, arrogance and extremely elitist attitude toward absolutely everyone else. They are always screaming about Pro-life and Family Values but both of them are very/extremely aggressive and endlessly support wars and killing.
I am totally against the Catholic Church's attitude toward women, Jews, Muslims, Protestants and even other Catholics who are not Roman Catholics, such as Eastern Rite Catholics like Jim Belushi and Troy Polamalu.
bob
We really need to change the discussion away from "big vs small government" to "effective vs ineffective government". When the rhetoric is always about big vs small, you can't have a good discussion about it since the vast majority of public sending on the federal level is in things that no one wants to touch or cut.
We could trim off 10% of military spending for example, save tens of billions, and still not be any "less safe" (a dubious, nebulous argument as to what that means anyway.) But even the slightest of cuts to the military are met with cries of terrorism, anti-Americanism, and loss of freedom. It's insane how little we discuss the role of the military in American life, other than to lionize it.
If we manage to shift the discussion towards evaluations of necessary vs unnecessary, frivolous vs useful, efficient vs inefficient, then maybe we can make some smart decisions about deficits and budgets. But as long as it is about the oversimplistic notion of big vs small, then we will end up with incredible stomach-turning hypocrisy, partisanship, and failure of government to do its rightful job of "promoting the general welfare" and advancing the interests of the people and society.
Instead we get fascism - the merger of government with corporations - weak government, strong corporate influence. We are increasingly moving towards fascism in America today. Socialism is not a real problem in America today. Fascism is!
Excellent point. "Big Gov't" is a Republican term. It, like the Repubes, isn't based in reality.