Thomas "Tip" DeLay

Jeff Taylor | September 14, 2005

It is official. The GOP is now exactly in the same position Democrats were in circa 1993 -- the disconnected, unapologetic party of bloated federal government. Only demographic trends and the Democrats' steadfast refusal to evince a lick of sense will keep 2006 from being 1994 in reverse.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has declared the federal budget to be fat-free, a mad thought on any day and positively deranged on the heels of pork laden highway and energy bills.

Comments

gaius marius|9.14.05 @ 9:52AM|#

now, why can't we get this bunch to declare victory and run from iraq the way they are from fiscal responsibility?

|9.14.05 @ 10:04AM|#

Tip O'Neil was never this corrupt or dishonest, and never came anywhere near this level of pork and debt.

Windypundit|9.14.05 @ 10:21AM|#

The balanced budget crowd isn't exactly sounding sensible either, according to that article. Major disasters like Hurricane Katrina are precisely the sort of thing for which it's OK to borrow money. It softens the economic shock. It's the ongoing expenses that should be balanced. (Of course, over the long run, disasters have to be balanced too, meaning the deficit has to be paid down.)

|9.14.05 @ 10:30AM|#

I like Flake's comment "I wonder if we've been serving in the same Congress".

2006 will not replicate 1994 because the Republicans have gerrymandered enough congressional districts to reinforce their stranglehold on Congress. DeLay scrambled districts in Texas last year. The fact that he will certainly be reelected is an embarrassment to the American political system.

|9.14.05 @ 10:38AM|#

Excuse me, I think my head just fell off.

Uncle Sam|9.14.05 @ 10:39AM|#

Perhaps he is using olestra.

Moon God|9.14.05 @ 10:43AM|#

Another thing that saves the Republicans is that Democrats are not exactly running as the party of smaller government. Their complaint, naturally, is that Republicans are the party of small government, and that they are somehow cutting all these vital programs, when of course nothing of the sort is true. As far gone as the Republicans are, it's important to remember that Democrats themselves haven't gained much sense to learn from 1994. If they did, they'd be in a great position.

Uncle Sam|9.14.05 @ 10:43AM|#

Not only does politics bring out the worst in people, it brings out the worst people.

|9.14.05 @ 10:44AM|#

joe,

...and never came anywhere near this level of pork and debt.

In real dollars?

|9.14.05 @ 10:44AM|#

I wonder about that, Crushinator.

It seems to me that many of the people who have been gerrymandered into safe Republican districts - for example, blue collar white Texans with high rates of military service in their communities, or low income rural/exurban families in Louisiana and Mississippi - are not as safe a constituency next time as the Delay might have thought.

Morat|9.14.05 @ 10:50AM|#

Hakluyt -- I wouldn't be surprised. Frankly, while the Democrats love pork just as much as the Republicans, the numbers I've seen indicate they were never this shameless.

I wish I could find the link, but the comparison I'm vaguely remembering indicated that the average GOP district is getting significantly more money back under a GOP congress than Democratic districts did under Democratic control (like five or six times more).

It might have something to do with the long period of Democratic control -- if you've held Congress for 40 years, you're really not in that much of a hurry.

Dave W.|9.14.05 @ 11:03AM|#

Tip O'Neil was never this corrupt or dishonest, and never came anywhere near this level of pork and debt.

Because of his integrity & judgement, or because of some kind of force external to Tip?

|9.14.05 @ 11:09AM|#

Dave W:

If the Democrats did have that external force putting the brakes on their spending, consider that the current Republican party does not.

Big government conservatism is here to stay.

|9.14.05 @ 11:09AM|#

Dave W., if you go back and compare the number of earmarks on major appropriation bills, like defense and transportation, those from the 1980s were measured in the tens, while today, there are literally thousands of them. You can argue against O'Neil's political and economic philosophy, but the spending bills from that era were motivated much more by a commitment to good governance (as the majority defined it back then), while those of today seem to be drawn up solely to provide giveaways for the leadership's favored (private) interests.

|9.14.05 @ 11:12AM|#

So what alternatives are the Democrats likely to give to those of us who think the budget is as fat-filled as a Carl's Junior Monster Thickburger? I may just stop voting for a while.

Truly, what's the point? Note that this isn't a complaint that the people are not being listened to by their elected represenatives. To the contrary, I think the elected representatives listen extremely well, and that a good majority of my fellow citizens think the primary role of the state is to give them access to others' wealth, for no better reason than they would like to have it.

What does one do to escape the thuggery?

|9.14.05 @ 11:20AM|#

I fail to discern the difference between sending treasury checks to wealthy and middle class retired people, for purposes of securing their votes, and building an uneeded bridge, for purposes of securing votes.

|9.14.05 @ 11:26AM|#

In a crude sense, Democrats believe in large government spending but such spending is generally widely distributed to their pet groups (teachers, union members, entitlement programs, etc.). Republicans have no shame about expanding government greatly, but their spending largely benefits concentrated, corporate interests. From the war in Iraq to now the storm Katrina, they will no-bid billions to political friends.

The best one can hope for is divided government. It is far from ideal but the best thing for 2006 would be a Democratic takeover of the House that gives them a 1 or 2 seat majority.

Dave W.|9.14.05 @ 11:29AM|#

Follow up questions:
But why did Tip participate in this better governance. (Confession: I know next to nothing about Tip O'Neill.)

Was it, as one poster says, fear of Republican oversight? Or was it more Tip's personal commitment to (relatively) rational, utilitarian spending? Or was it a whip formed of decades of smart, good career bureaucrats, still holding on from the FDR years, still holding some kind(?) of leverage despite their non-elected status?

I am curious, because whatever it was we need it back.

Dave W.|9.14.05 @ 11:30AM|#

or other Democrats -- I meant to mention that possibility -- the carter effect or something??

|9.14.05 @ 11:32AM|#

I knew someone would chime in to play dumb on the difference between principled public projects and pork. Do you really think you're advancing small government interests by working to blur that distinction?

Mr. Allen, your comparison is inapt. Having a Social Security system is a public project desinged to achieve a broad public benefit. An unneeded bridge is not.

An apt comparison would be if Mr. O'Neil put through a bill to increase the Social Security checks of the voters in Democratic (or close) districts. That would be the equivalent of an unneeded bridge.

The equivalent of having Social Security system would be to fund the DOT to build and maintain roadways as needed.

|9.14.05 @ 11:37AM|#

There is no political problem so complex that it cannot be remedied by a head on a pike.

|9.14.05 @ 11:49AM|#

No, joe, the purpose of Social Security is to purchase votes. Sending checks to 70 year old people who can support themselves, instead of 22 year old people who can support themselves, is no different than spending billions on uneeded projects in West Virginia or Alaska, instead of uneeded projects elsewhere.

The fact that some people may need direct government support no more rationalizes sending checks to those that don't, than does the fact that some infrastructure projects are worthwhile rationalizes spending money on projects that are not worthwhile. You simply prefer sending checks to people who don't need it rather than spending money on uneeded infrastructure.

Morat|9.14.05 @ 11:49AM|#

But why did Tip participate in this better governance. (Confession: I know next to nothing about Tip O'Neill.)

At a guess? Because Democrats tend to believe government can work. Ergo, they tend to focus more of government's money and resources on programs and projects they believe help.

Whereas today's modern conservatives (at least the Delay type, and since he owns Congress) don't believe government really works, but ALSO know that the bulk of American disagrees with them. So they accept big government -- in order to get elected -- but since they don't actually believe government's useful for much besides the military, tend to view spending as more "reward" than "producing good results".

If you have to spend it, and you can't do anything useful with it, might as well give it to friends.

|9.14.05 @ 11:55AM|#

To put it more bluntly, Claude Pepper pimping for his primary constituency, old people who retire to Florida, was no different than Don Young current pimping for his, Alaska construction firms and their employees.

|9.14.05 @ 12:05PM|#

joe,

Given the history of water projects in this country during the 1970s and 1980s I have a hard time believing you.

Shannon Love|9.14.05 @ 12:05PM|#

joe,

Your romantic view of Tip O'Neil is very touching but highly ahistorical. Perhaps you recall how back in the early 80's he and Ted Kennedy went berserk when the Airforce decided that it didn't need jet engines manufactured in Massachusetts? IIRC, the military ended up with something like 6 squadrons it didn't want (and that was during Reagans defense buildup). The idea that the old school Irish dominated Democratic machine that Tip came out of was only concerned with good governance is simply ridiculous. They had their snout crammed in the trough as hard as anyone else.

|9.14.05 @ 12:32PM|#

* WAR IS PEACE
* FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
* IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

And introducing:

* FAT IS THIN

M1EK|9.14.05 @ 12:32PM|#

joe, don't be optimistic about Texas. Outside a couple of urban oases, there is zero chance that a Democrat will be elected for decades, even if the Republican candidate is caught in bed with a live boy AND a dead girl.

|9.14.05 @ 12:33PM|#

Shannon-

IIRC, Gingrich did something similar with airplanes from his district.

So, on the one hand, it is clear to me that the same games have always been played. But by some quantitative measures the scope of the game is more obscene right now.

I've heard all sorts of theories for why this difference exists. I even have my own theories.

But I have no clue if any of these theories are right.

|9.14.05 @ 12:34PM|#

Upon rereading, his comments could be construed as being tongue-in-cheek and posibly even critical of Congress for not bringing him any proposals for cuts, though I';m not sure what's stopping him from doing it. The fat-free comment seemed too over-the-top, even for him.

|9.14.05 @ 12:49PM|#

Pardon the cliche', but there's not a dime's worth of difference between Democratic pork and Republican pork. Each group spends bucks to satisfy its constituency.
The difference, if there is one, is in the party members. I can't remember any democrats grumbling that their leaders were spending too much money on wasteful, useless social programs. (On the contrary, no matter how much was spent, a program would always have been better if even more was spent.) I have noticed grumblings from some republicans that their leaders are spending too much money on wasteful, useless infrastructure programs.

Shannon Love|9.14.05 @ 12:54PM|#

thoreau,

I think that with government spending we are looking at a classic tragedy of the commons. We all contribute to a common pot and then assign the politicians the task of doling it back out. Just as with the cows and the grass, no single entity, from individuals to entire regions, has incentive not to try to grab as much from the common pot as possible. If one entity refuses to play the game, it can be sure another will simply take its share.

I don't think this has anything to do with ideology. I think it is behaviors dictated by game theory. The only way to maximize ones own economic gain is to try to out maneuver others. If a particular politician refuses to play he will find his constitutes asking why the people in the other district got their "bridge to nowhere" and they did not.

This is one of the unavoidable systemic faults of democratic governance. It will occur regardless of who we elect or when we elect them. We can only hope to minimize the negative effects by reducing the scope of government and thus reducing the size of the common pot. The fewer tasks the government undertakes the fewer opportunities for misspending. For example, if the federal government didn't build roads then we wouldn't have Federal road pork.

The rise of the centralized state in the 20th century was (in my analysis) driven by the hierarchal information management technology of the day. Large vertically integrated enterprises whether private or public had an advantage in delivering the goods. Now however, that trend has reversed itself. Modern information management technology favors flat hierarchies and distributed decision making.

I am hopeful that long term this will reduce the role that the state and its implicit violence plays in our lives.

Charles Hueter|9.14.05 @ 1:07PM|#

I don't think this has anything to do with ideology.

I disagree. I think if you put enough people in a room who think they have a right to other people's stuff, they'll go right ahead and grab it for their purposes.

Shannon Love|9.14.05 @ 1:43PM|#

Charles Hueter,

Short-term, ideology might form a brake, long-term it will not. It only takes one cheater to cause the self-restraint of others to unravel.

Philosophically, I have no confidence in the idea that certain systems will work if only we have the correct morality and especially if the leadership has the correct morality. I think that long-term everyone tries to maximize their own self-interest, enlightened or otherwise and that basing a political and economic system on any other assumption will fail catastrophically.

MP|9.14.05 @ 2:13PM|#

Shannon,

I think you're better off pointing to Public Choice theory then trying to force politics into a Tragedy of the Commons bucket.

|9.14.05 @ 2:30PM|#

Hakluyt, Shannon,

Of course this is not black and white, but a matter of degree. Yes, Tip was a porker. So were other Democrats of the day. But nowhere near the degree we're seeing today. There are literally thousands - thousands! - of earmarks on the TEA-LU Bill (the transportation funding bill named after the chairman's wife, Lu.)

How does your game theory account for the discrepancy between then and now, Shannon?

|9.14.05 @ 2:33PM|#

joe-

The game theory analysis implies that this is inevitable, and allows people to side-step any uncomfortable questions about the difference between past and present.

|9.14.05 @ 3:00PM|#

At least my boy Flake was critical of his remarks. I'm voting for that guy in the next election if I'm in his district.

I think that the Republicans are so bad precisely because they claim to be small government types. Nobody's expecting it, and it's almost like people can't believe that Republicans could be huge porkers. The Democrats are all about taxing and spending and everyone knows it, so they have to be at least a little bit careful to make it look like they're actually spending money on important things.

Or something. Frankly, I have to throw my hands up in disgust over pretty much everything going on these days. Argh! The sky is falling! :)

Shannon Love|9.14.05 @ 3:12PM|#

Joe,

I think the number of earmarks is related to procedural changes made back around 1996 or so that were intended to keep politicians hiding spending deep inside legislation. The real question is, has real spending on pork, especially as a percentage of GDP, really increased? I don't think it has, at least not yet. As a matter of degree, I think the degree of abuse remains fairly fixed.

If you were looking for controlling factor I would say it is one party dominance. For comparison look at how things turned out when the Dems were completely ascendent from 1973-1980. Without the serious political competition, individual politicians are free to pursue their own immediate self-interest at the expense of the common good. It makes runaway spending much more likely.

As to whether one party is more or less trustworthy than the other, the jet engine affair was very revealing. The entire Massachusetts delegation fought hard against the military buildups of both the late-Carter admin and Reagan, yet they fought like fiends to make sure that their state got a wildly disproportionate share of the military spending. They were so successful that many credited the "Massachusetts Miracle" almost entirely to military spending in the state.

Surely, an anti-defense spending delegation that porks defense dollars, even to point of forcing on the military weapons systems is does not want, is every bit as hypocritical as supposed financial conservatives who pork highway projects.

|9.14.05 @ 3:19PM|#

Joe, those earmarks are just part of a broad public program designed for public benefit, just as sending a monthly stipend to Warren Buffett is. The infrastructure porkers, of course, aren't nearly as proficient as the geezer porkers, in that they have not yet managed to label their vote-buying scheme an "entitlement", and exempt it from the normal budget process.

|9.14.05 @ 3:53PM|#

Hey, Will Allen, you leave my entitlement alone.

Oink, Oink.

|9.14.05 @ 4:06PM|#

I'll saying again, Will: deliberately ignoring the difference between principled spending for the public good (even if wrongheaded) and giveaways with no connection to the public good, is as harmful to the cause of small government as it is dishonest.

|9.14.05 @ 4:46PM|#

joe, just because you assert that there is a difference between sending uneeded checks to millionaires, as part of a program to transfer wealth from young to old (ostensibly for the public good), and sending checks to construction firms to build uneeded bridges, as part of a program to build infrastructure (ostensibly for the public good), doesn't mean you have demonstrated it. You haven't, and your assertion that there is a difference is merely an expression of your preference for sending checks to geezers as opposed to sending checks to construction firms.

|9.14.05 @ 5:25PM|#

Will Allen

It's like this.

In joe's world any social program or infrastructure project the Dems do is for the public good. Any social program or infrastructure project the Reps do is for shallow narrow political ends.

|9.14.05 @ 7:29PM|#

If you have to steal it, it ain't principled.

- Josh

|9.14.05 @ 8:02PM|#

Maybe Delay is coming down from a 7 day meth binge.

|9.15.05 @ 10:49AM|#

It's all Government Cheese, whichever way you slice it.

And we Americans have gotten pretty used to being handed our Government Cheese.

|9.15.05 @ 10:51AM|#

I guess you all consider the National Taxpayers Union to be statist tools, then, because they put a great deal of effort into identifying pork.

|9.15.05 @ 11:31AM|#

And they see it no matter which side of the aisle it came from.

|9.15.05 @ 12:39PM|#

Joe, I don't give any consideration at all to the National Taxpayer's Union. Is this some sort of argument from authority?

The fact is you have made as assertion that there is a difference between cutting uneeded checks to rich old people as part of a program to transfer wealth from young to old, because transferring wealth from young to old is ostensibly for the public good, and cutting checks to construction firms to build uneeded bridges, as part of a program to build transporation infrastructure, because building transportation infrastructure is ostensibly for the public good. You have not yet written anything to demsonstrate that this assertion is valid, however. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the basis of your assertion is merely that you prefer to cut uneeded checks to rich old people than to cut uneeded checks to construction firms. Well, you are entitled to your preference, but that has no bearing on the validity of your assertion.

|9.15.05 @ 1:46PM|#

because building transportation infrastructure is ostensibly for the public good. You have not yet written anything to demsonstrate that this assertion is valid, however. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the basis of your assertion is merely that you prefer to cut uneeded checks to rich old people than to cut uneeded checks to construction firms. Well, you are entitled to your preference, but that has no bearing on the validity of your assertion.

|9.15.05 @ 2:17PM|#

Just to add some actual facts ...

Deficit as Percent of GDP (highest each decade)

1976 - 4.2 percent
1983 - 6 percent
1992 - 4.7 percent
2004 - 3.6 percent

That's from the OMB at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/hist.html

I'll see if I can figure out real social spending per capita. I suspect it has never or rarely fallen over the last 30 years.

|9.15.05 @ 2:33PM|#

"Tip O'Neil was never this corrupt or dishonest"

Uh, yeah right. O'Neil shamelessly admitted he lied to Reagan about holding up his end of a budget deal.

|9.15.05 @ 5:58PM|#

Not that y'all care but ...

Real per capita federal spending increases from 1973 to 2004 (according to the OMB)

All "Human Resources" - up 243 percent
Health and Medicare - up 573 percent
Social and Income Security - up 210 percent
Miltary Spending - up 5 percent

That's real per capita spending. I was a little surprised at the military spending myself.

Also year on year rises versus falls

All "Human Resources" - 28 rises, 3 falls
Health and Medicare - 31 rises, no falls
Social and Income Security - 24 rises, 7 falls
Miltary Spending - 16 rises, 15 falls