I've never gotten the "you'd better shape up or we'll sit out the next election" mentality. That's what gave us 8 years of Clintonism.

Sit out '06 and you fill congress with Happy Seats for Hillary. She wins in '08 you're talking a real disaster. Our country may never recover.

One thing I think might help with Porkbusting and actually getting a 'pork list' acted on, is instituting something like tey do with that "Base Closure Committee."

You know, where an independent panel comes back to Congress with their recommendation and Congress can either say yea of nay, but they can't change the details. Congress handcuffs themselves like this cause they know, individually, they won't have the politcal willpower to back a closure in their home state (even if they know it needs to go) and that this way, they can actually get it done.

Anyway, seems the same mechanism would work on pork. I know "Pork" isn't as clear cut as a' no longer strategically necessary base,' but it might the only thing to counteract selfinterested politics.

Ace,

I'm at the point. I'm so sick of defending rhetoric and being part of a herd mentality. When Ried calls Bush a loser, the Republicans don't fight back or call for a resignation, had they maybe we wouldn't have Miers today, but when Lott says something he has to resign his post almost instantly. They don't fight back at all in Washington and are afraid to fight with a minority Democratic party. If being a minority means you call the shots, maybe we deserve being a minority party again.

In Katrina Democrats did terrible political games like Shumer's fundraising and not a word from Republicans, just more silence. When Blanco is before Congress -- no questions in regards to her terrible handling of New Orleans. We're whimps and forgive my wording but we're a party of pussies too...

Then when I'm not happy with the herd direction and Barney defenders in my party and disagree with them on Miers, they want to question my Republican credentials and that's really pissing me off. I voted for Republicans believing they stood for something like less government and I think I should expect promises of elections to be somewhat fulfilled, at least attempted...

No way was Clinton a fiscal conservative. Practically the only programs he cut voluntarily were defense related. Pretty much everything else was the work of Gingrich and the deficit cutters, or just mindless obstructionism on the part of a Republican-controlled Congress.

Normally I'm strongly opposed to the idea of sitting out elections, particularly-- Forget it. Let's just say I can rant at great length on the inadvisability of the tactic. However, this might be an exception. Maybe if the pork were being delivered by a narrowly Democratic Congress, Bush might remember that there's nothing unusual about vetoing a bill.

Being the first president in more than two centuries to make it through an entire term without a single veto is beyond unusual; it's flat-out nuts. At this point, I'd cheer if the guy vetoed the Cuddly Puppies for Katrina Orphans Act of 2005.

I think our paymasters at the GOP overestimate our fear of the Dark Witch Hillary. I think she's be a disaster but we'd survive it. If that's what it took to return the GOP to sanity I'd risk it.

What's the bad that could happen really? Minority parties have the power in that town, not majority parties...

PO'd Republican,

Yah, I feel your pain buddy. I've never knowingly voted for a demonrat, and I never will (because if I do I'll have to cut off my hand because it would have turned evil), but damn - it really is beginning to look like there's no real difference between the two parties. Sometimes I get the thought that they really are all of the same party and they just make a big show of having these battles and bitter partisan divides and then it's all backslaps and bellylaughs behind closed doors.

Gah - I'm gettin' dem crazy thoughts again. Need to tighten my tinfoil hat.

Of course, the tax policies have also led to a big decrease in revenues as a percentage of GDP at the same time the outlays have climbed relative to GDP, for the deficit double-whammy.

These CBO tables are helpful for looking at historical trends.

WHY DOES ACE HATE ORVILLE REDDENBACHER???

Math not being one of my core competencies, please bear with what may well be a stupid question. (I know, there are no stupid questions, only stupid questioners).

How can Bush have only, "...increased total discretionary spending 35.1 percent...", when he increased defense spending, "...by 37.2 percent...", AND nondefense by, "by a humongous 37 percent"? What other category of discretionary spending is there besides defense and nondefense? And if that is all the discretionary spending wouldn't that mean that it had increased by closer to 37% than 35%?

Hillary isn't the big scary demoness to me.
We got more conservatism out of the GOP, with a smaller minority, during the reign of Sad King Billy.

And up until now the only counter was "Yeah but we need to hold the Presidency to prevent another Ginsburg and get good construcionist judges"
Well since Georgie just dropped his drawers and shit allover that excuse, party loyalty is no longer enough to get me to pull the lever for the R instead of the LP canidate.

The real question is, if the GOP takes a beating in '06, will they blame it on Bush's cronyism and abandonment of conservative principals (assuming Bush ever was a conservative), or will they just assume (as the MSM will trumpet) that this a repudiation of the war/tax cuts/lack of gay marriage or what ever the liberal cause dejeur is.

Roundhead,

You said it perfectly. Hildabeast's socialist bent is well known. The GOP Congress made Bill look better than he actually was. Remember his socialized medicine goal?

Good question, Howard.

I'm not sitting out '06--my congresscritter gets a 93 from the Taxpayers Union and needs every vote. But as far as the national candidates go, my checkbook's taking some time off.

Cut the budget by putting all those tax and spend fools on a strict budget tell them they cant go over $500 a year just how much would they end up saving wit this?

Pork is bad, but it's the entitlements, stupid.

As long as the Federal Government is permitted to act as a nanny on the most fundamental issues, it'll continue to nanny us on the small ones.

I agree that the GOP is dropping the ball mightily on a number of issues, but empowering the Democrats by sitting out elections is not the solution. There is still one fundamental difference between the two parties; the Republicans know we are in the middle of World War III and are willing to fight it, while the Dems seem to think this is a big misunderstanding between us and raving psychotics. With today's Democratic party in charge, we'll get a starved military and a passive intelligence community, and Al-Queda will rebuild. That is not something we will be able to live with.

True. But both need to be cut.

It's actually easier to cut pork, as hard as that is. People actually don't like the IDEA of pork, whereas I'm pretty sure the GOP would be in for a hell of a ride if they actually attempted to cut Medicare or Medicaid.

I know you know Ace. I'm just the comment curmudgeon who keeps yelling out the obvious that everyone forgets.

Cut all the noxious pork out of the budget (to dream!) and guess what? We're still running a deficit.

I'll take any progress I can get, of course. But structural change is what's needed, not just momentary anger.

Damn Bill Clinton. Damn him all to hell. If hadn't outmaneuvered Newt on technicalities, we just might be in a fantastic shape today. Pork dead, useless federal agencies (but I repeat myself) gone.

Alas, that dream is deader than my chances of ever visiting the Playboy Mansion.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I couldn't agree more with Dave about the porky qualities of the entitlement programs, which, IIRC (I'm not going to spend the afternoon googling on this) have ballooned from just over 20 percent to roughly 80 percent of federal spending over the last three or four decades.

Unfortunately, entitlements are almost sacred. The Dems break out in assholes and shit themselves to death at the mere suggestion that the rate of increase in entitlement spending should be slowed; actually putting a cap on the programs, making participation voluntary, or cutting them is unthinkable. Entitlements are the most European feature of our system (thanks, LBJ!), and I doubt we're going to be much better than the Europeans at the hard work of giving them up .

Ace and Dr Reo Symes: Sam Brown back ahs already proposed this in the Senate, though I'm not sure how far it's gotten.

"I have supported a Balanced Budget Amendment in the past and I would support it again. But what we’ve got to do is change the structure of the system here where the system legislators believe it rewards them to spend money rather than save it and it’s just structured wrong.

I put in a proposal, we’ve got it in on the House side, and we’ll get it in on the Senate side in the next couple of weeks, that does a BRAC type of structure for the rest of government including entitlement programs where you have a commission look at the totality of government. Are these programs effective? Are they duplications? If they are, then propose eliminations of whole programs -- or maybe the program accomplished its purpose -- or maybe it was never effective in the first place. They do those appraisals and then present in front of Congress a bill that says these 363 programs should be eliminated and give Congress one vote up or down without amendment whether to keep them all or to eliminate them all.

I think we’ve got to change the structure and the BRAC structure has been successful in changing, reducing a number of military bases, consolidating them successfully and I think we ought to use that structure throughout the rest of government. We have to get spending under control. We have not been able to do that and we need to change this structure to be able to get that done. "

That should read "Sam Brownback has..."

"If being a minority means you call the shots, maybe we deserve being a minority party again."

You're assuming that majority Democrats would let minority Republicans pull the same sort of stunts thatmajority Republicans have been letting minority Democrats pull.

When and if they regain control, it won't be pretty.

Sit out '06 and you fill congress with Happy Seats for Hillary. She wins in '08 you're talking a real disaster. Our country may never recover.

Those of you who don't understand this need to remember Bill Klintoon's judicial appointments, and how he gave bin Laden AND Saddam a free pass for eight years. And he's WAY more moderate (read: poll-driven) than Hill-de-beast or any of the likely 2008 Democratic candidates.

Regarding the budget: George Allen and Jim Talent just introduced a bill to bring back the line-item veto last week.
Details here at Allen's Senate page.

I meant a Constitutional Amendment, of course, not just a bill. Duh.

Sorry - Hidabeast and GWOT are just not enough to excuse the snivilling and atrocious behavior of the GOP and the Prez..

We were a better party in the early 90's - we had a purpose and we had balls. We stopped HRC before, and we can do it again.

"snivilling and atrocious behavior"

Mirror image of KOS.

Fuck all that stuff... three words should do it all... Line Item Veto!

Put them all on a budget why allow them to spend our money on their rediclous projects?