Separating the Serious from the Unserious Opposition

I’ve written often in comments here at TMV that much of the Republican Party’s opposition to the “pork” in the stimulus bill is offered in bad faith. I say this for two reasons:

1) Most of these Congressmen voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act in 2003. This was the largest expansion in entitlements since LBJ. Nobody who approved this legislation can honestly claim the mantle of “small government conservative.” Note, by the way, that the Republican opponents of that bill include now Senator Jim Demint, who has led the GOP opposition in the Senate. At least he is consistent and serious about opposing government spending. The only other Republicans who opposed the bill and are still in the Senate are: Burr (then in the House) (NC), and McCain. The others? They all voted for it.

2) Most of these same Congressmen who rail against “pork” in other people’s districts proudly display their “pork” for the home crowd. My Congressman, Jimmy Duncan (TN-02), rails against government spending in his quarterly newsletter – right underneath a picture of a new justice center recently completed. Here is an example of some local “pork” from his website – a grant that he helped secure from the National Science Foundation for a National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS). As I look out my window I see the construction of the Maryville Civic Arts Center, made possible in part by Federal government grants proudly steered here by Congressman Duncan. Lots of workers are busily employed on that project – one of the few construction projects going forward right now in East Tennessee. Note also that Congressman Duncan voted FOR the Medicare Prescription Drug Act.

So while I appreciate the “pork” my Congressman is bringing home to the good people of East Tennessee, spare me the outrage about “pork” and government spending elsewhere.

Take away the phony “small government conservatives” and you are left with a small rump of moderate Republicans and hardcore ideologues. The ideologues like Demint have taken charge of the opposition to the stimulus bill today. What’s striking is how many Republicans who voted for the massive domestic spending expansion in 2003 voted FOR Senator Demint’s radical proposal yesterday to cut ALL spending from the stimulus bill and replace it with tax cuts. That’s right. ALL spending. And it got 36 votes. That means that only four Senators – Snowe, Collins, Specter and Voinovich – are open to ANY spending in the stimulus package at all.

Those four moderate Republicans comprise the only serious objection to excessive and unnecessary spending at this point. By that I mean that if the Democrats cut a sizable portion of the spending – even a couple hundred billion dollars – they would come on board. The other 36? Nothing will appease them. They are what Obama referred to today in his op-ed piece in the Washington Post as offering“failed theories”, namely Bushian tax cuts, to solve this problem.

So let the Demint amendment be a wake-up call. There are people with serious objections to excessive spending, but who can be persuaded to support a somewhat leaner stimulus. There are pure ideologues like Demint, Burr and – to a lesser extent McCain (who voted for the bailout in October) – who opposed the Prescription Drug plan and oppose the spending now. And there are dozens of opportunists and partisans who only care about making the Democratic President look bad.

My guess is that the four moderates (perhaps included Bonnie Newman of New Hampshire) will be the only “bi-partisan” Senators willing to work with the Democrats on anything.

UPDATE:

Here is a document containing a potential $77 billion in cuts from the stimulus bill worked out by the Collins-Nelson group.

My own personal view is that most look fine to cut. I just wonder what the “state stabilization money” actually means, and why they would cut 100% of it.