Bloodless Coup

My dear binky, you can't blame Bush for everything. Pork is a Congressional issue, at least until the line-item veto is revived.

well, can we at least blame the party of small government and fiscal discipline? can we? please?

(it's notable that the slope has been positive and roughly the same since '96.)

Moon - Why do you want to blame the Democrats? :)

C'mon it's clear that the Republicans, under President Bush are the party of 1) GIGANTIC government, 2) GIGANTIC government based on Washington DC, not "local" areas, and 3) GIGANTIC government funded by running up wildly irresponsible record-breaking deficits.

There's no way to look at the last 5 US budgets and dispute any of that. Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower continue to spin faster and faster in their graves every day that George W. is in office.

I don't believe for an instant that the Democrats, given a similar situation (a return to full congressional control following many years in the minority), would have been any less restrained. This is a systemic dysfunction, not a Republican one.

Well, that's an empirical question - anyone who wants to do an analysis of 1993 & 1994 and compare it to 2003-2005 could tell us the answer.

And in any event, it's not the Democrats who repeatedly crow about how they are the party of small government - that is one area (though hardly the only one) in which what Republicans say they'll do is clearly not matched by what they actually do.

Of course from a poli sci angle there are a number of studies at both the national and state level that suggest if you want responsible programs and lower deficits (though not necessarily smaller government) people should vote for divided government.

Note that I said the administration of which I am surely including all the lackeys in Congress. It's a team effort, and there's been plenty of commentary about how meaningful it is that the party controls both branches and is working together on its agenda.

Likewise, I would note that saying "the slope is the same" really misrepresents the data this graph is conveying. The slope is not the same, and shows the biggest proportional jump from 2000 to 2002 (the "team" effort) and the absolute growth from 2000 to 2004 is remarkably higher than the 1996 to 2000 period (and not totally an appropriate comparison, being second vs. first term, at that). The average as presented for the era of divided government shows an average pork of $4398 while for unified government an average (and yes, I know that's not the right way to make an average, but I'm working with the already averaged data I've got) of $12421. That's nearly three times higher in the span of four years, when under the previous administration the numbers were neither consistently growing nor growing as much when they did.

Add to it the "party of fiscal conservatism" and you see why I feel comfortable laying the blame at the feet of the administration.

And just to rub in a little salt, lest we forget, the economy was actually doing well in the earlier period. If there was a time we could afford pork, that was it, unlike with the economy under the Bush adminstration. Yes, there are reasons for the slump, but those reasons ought to encourage restraint - especially from the party of fiscal conservatism - not festive profligacy.