Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Swimming With Squid





P.J. O'Rourke once postulated that the most intelligent thing anyone could say about the government was that it was like taking a bath in a tubful of squid, so complete was it's sliminess. I generally find such arguments to be an exaggeration, if not a palpable untruth. I suspect that 90% of the "slimes" in Washington are utterly unaware of the fact that they are slimes, except in the most sardonic manner. There's very little that our federal government debates that is not, one way or another, that doesn't have to do with money: inlays and outlays. So one man's tax relief is another man's fiscal irresponsibility, and one man's progressive charity is another man's counterproductive waste of public wealth. Everybody fights the other guy as dirty as possible, because you can't accomplish your tax relief, fiscal responsibility, or progressive charity if you lose. But you still believe in tax relief, fiscal responsibility, or progressive charity.


With that in mind, take a gander at this (link via NRO).


Now I've never heard of Insight Magazine, but guessing from their home page, they seem like a right-leaning job to me. So you can expect the spin of Bush' budget numbers. Nevertheless, it's the only piece I've read this year that talks in any detail about the programs being cut or the overall structure of the budget. I also find it interesting that no one on the right seems to have bothered making these arguments before now, but have bought into the "Hey, Big Spender" meme.


So here we have the progressives and the traditionalists scourging each other over money spent here, money spent there, help not given here, burden not being lifted there. And as I said, most of them are honest, and most of them are arguing according to the facts that follow their philosophy (where they get their philosophy is another matter). But once again, as Tom Daschle pointed out, we could cut all discretionary spending and still have a deficit. I'm not hearing anything from either campaign on Social Security reform, despite what Greenspan said last week and despite today's statement by the Medicare trustees that it too will go broke if nothing is done. The conclusion that the political class is so interested in its Great Game that it refuses to see the coming deluge is easy to arrive at. Perhaps that's what P.J. meant.

No comments: