Fiscal Indiscipline

Comment by Your Blogger: These High Officials are Frauds

Fiscal Indiscipline - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com

Whatever happened to the presidential promise to impose stricter spending limits? Plus, critters in Crawford.

WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey
Newsweek
Updated: 4:16 p.m. ET Aug. 10, 2005


Aug. 10, 2005 - When George W. Bush was running for president in 2000, he promised to usher in what he called The Responsibility Era. That was in contrast, of course, to the Clinton-era of irresponsible behavior, a culture that Bush described as “If it feels good do it, and if you’ve got a problem, blame somebody else.” But when it comes to being responsible with the nation’s finances, it’s clear that President Bush remains far behind his predecessor and all too ready to blame somebody else for his problems.

On Tuesday, Bush met with his economic advisers at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in a session described by a White House official as an “annual retreat.” In remarks to reporters afterward, Bush said one way to encourage economic growth was to make sure Congress followed stricter spending limits, something the president has repeatedly mentioned as a major goal of his second term. “It’s very important to Congress, as they work on appropriations bills, to adhere to the budgets they’ve passed so that we can continue to send the signals to people around the country that we’re serious about being fiscally responsible with people’s money,” Bush said. Yet even Bush’s staunchest conservative supporters are questioning the White House’s commitment to fiscal discipline.

The following day Bush traveled to Illinois to sign into law a $286 billion highway bill—the most expensive public works bill in U.S. history, according to congressional legislators. The White House and Congress had battled over the scope of the bill for more than two years. Earlier this year, Bush threatened to veto any bill that exceeded $250 billion. That was later upped to $270 billion, but in a bid to show progress on domestic priorities, the White House last month signaled that it would support a $284 billion bill. Yet Congress didn’t even adhere to that price tag, approving a bill in the final days before the August recess that surpassed Bush’s goal by another $2 billion.

Why so expensive? At the last minute, Congress added nearly $25 billion in so-called pork-barrel projects—the priciest round ever, according to the conservative group Taxpayers for Common Sense. One project funded by the bill: a $300 million bridge in Alaska named after Rep. Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation Committee. Designed to be one of the largest bridges in North America, the project has been described by critics as “the road to nowhere” since it will link a tiny Alaskan fishing town along the state’s southern tip to an even tinier island, which boasts less than 50 inhabitants.

In addition, lawmakers last week admitted that the bill’s cost will actually near $295 billion, thanks to a last-minute number fudging. To keep the price tag at $286 billion, Congress has pledged to repay an extra $8.5 billion included in the bill before the legislation expires in 2009. Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake, one of the House’s most passionate fiscal conservatives, had urged Bush to veto the bill. “The transportation bill ought to carry the same warning that drivers see on their rearview mirror,” Flake says. “Items are larger than they appear.”

White House officials have been noticeably defensive about the legislation, as well as questions about Bush’s own commitment to curb federal spending. “Listen, this president is the one that’s keeping spending under control,” Allan Hubbard, a top Bush economic adviser, told reporters Tuesday. “There were a number of members of Congress who wanted a $400 billion highway bill. Because of this president, it is a $286 billion highway bill.” When asked if Bush thinks the bill is too expensive, Hubbard looked irritated. “The president is very happy with this bill,” he said. “Next question.”



Ranch Dressing
Crawford has been invaded by more than just White House reporters this month. In a bout of unfortunate timing, Bush’s five weeks at the Western White House have come during what local officials have described as the height of the central Texas cricket season. Conditions are even worse than usual.

Recent heavy rains and humid conditions sparked a mating season unlike any in recent memory, producing a scourge of chirping critters worthy of an Old Testament plague. Most reporters traveling with Bush were alerted about the cricket “proliferation” by a memo posted in their hotel rooms. Yet one unfortunate White House correspondent learned of the scourge through a 2 a.m. wake-up call sung by a lone cricket hiding in the air vent of his seventh-floor hotel room. The bugs have been spotted everywhere—on the sidewalks, in the hallways, even in the press vans used to ferry reporters out to the Bush ranch.

Not even the commander in chief is safe. Before Bush’s press conference Thursday, White House staffers spent several minutes clearing crickets away from the presidential photo op, which was held in a helicopter hanger near the entrance of the president’s ranch. The aides flicked bugs that had hopped onto the American flags displayed as a backdrop and used brooms to sweep them away from Bush’s podium.

But the White House can’t control everything. During the president’s remarks, an airborne cricket emerged from nowhere, appearing to fall from the sky above Bush’s head. The larger-than-average insect landed inches away from Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, who showed no visible reaction to her near encounter. Afterward, as Bush exited the room and the cameras were turned off, one White House aide could no longer conceal her disgust. “Ew!” she said, shuddering and making a sour face. “That thing is disgusting!” She wasn’t talking about the reporters.


© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.