Cal Thomas Spending obscenities

That Republicans are outspending the most reckless 1980s Democrat (and 1960s Great Society Democrats and 1940s FDR Democrats) is the sorriest spectacle of all.

The Senate vote increased the debt ceiling for the fourth time in five years. The statutory debt limit has now risen by more than $3 trillion since President Bush took office. That any Republican majority could preside over such fiscally irresponsible spending ought to be grounds for revoking their party membership.

This is mostly about politics, not terrorism. …

Coolidge left the presidency with a surplus. So did Bill Clinton. That a Republican Congress and administration are engaging in such promiscuous spending is obscene. If voting in Democrats —who in the past engaged in deficit spending — punishes Republicans, little will change. What to do?

Maybe it’s time for a strong third party, or failing that, another revolution.

Grants Flow To Bush Allies On Social Issues By Thomas B. Edsall, Washington Post Staff Writer

Under the auspices of its religion-based initiatives and other federal programs, the administration has funneled at least $157 million in grants to organizations run by political and ideological allies, according to federal grant documents and interviews. …

Among other new beneficiaries of federal funding during the Bush years are groups run by Christian conservatives, including those in the African American and Hispanic communities. Many of the leaders have been active Republicans and influential supporters of Bush’s presidential campaigns. …

“If what you are asking is, has George Bush as president of the United States established priorities in spending for his administration? The answer is yes,” said Wade F. Horn, who as assistant secretary for children and families at HHS oversees much of the spending going to conservative groups. “That is a prerogative that presidents have.” …

“These are just slush funds for conservative interest groups,” countered Bill Smith, vice president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, one of the most outspoken critics of abstinence-only sex-education programs. “These organizations would not be in existence if not for the federal dollars coming through.” …

Most, but not all, of the money going to conservative groups has come from two programs that did not exist before Bush took office in 2001. …

Hundreds of struggling antiabortion and pregnancy crisis centers have received federal grants that often doubled or tripled their annual budgets, allowing them to branch out and hire staff, especially for abstinence education. …

The shift under Bush in part grows out of the administration’s Faith and Community Based Initiative. …

In a Dec. 12, 2002, executive order, Bush addressed one of the major concerns of religious groups considering applying for public money. Bush declared that religious groups receiving federal grants would not be required to comply with certain civil rights statutes, and could discriminate by hiring employees of specific religious faiths.

Skepticism about the distribution of money under the religion-based initiatives abounds in both parties. …

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.) was more outspoken. “I believe ultimately this will be seen as one of the largest patronage programs in American history,” he said. …

In addition to liberals, there are conservative critics of taxpayer funding of groups on the right.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

USNews.com: The White House says spying on terrorism suspects without court approval is OK. What about physical searches? By Chitra Ragavan

In December, the New York Times disclosed the NSA’s warrantless electronic surveillance program, resulting in an angry reaction from President Bush. It has not previously been disclosed, however, that administration lawyers had cited the same legal authority to justify warrantless physical searches. But in a little-noticed white paper submitted by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Congress on January 19 justifying the legality of the NSA eavesdropping, Justice Department lawyers made a tacit case that President Bush also has the inherent authority to order such physical searches. …

During Senate testimony about the NSA surveillance program, however, Gonzales was at pains to avoid answering questions about any warrantless physical surveillance activity that may have been authorized by the Justice Department. …

In 1975 and 1976, an investigative committee led by then Sen. Frank Church documented how the FBI engaged in broad surveillance of private citizens and members of antiwar and civil rights groups, as well as Martin Luther King Jr. The committee’s hearings and the executive-branch abuses that were documented in the Watergate investigation led to numerous reforms, including passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978.

On Iraq, Plenty of Scores to Settle Even If the Dust Hasn’t By Howard Kurtz, Washington Post Staff Writer

As Bush continues to flounder in the polls, more on the right are breaking ranks. Bruce Bartlett, who was dropped by a free-market think tank over his new book “Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy,” recently called the administration “unconscionable,” “vindictive” and “inept.”

Peggy Noonan writes that she would not have voted for Bush had she known he was going to turn into a big-spending Lyndon Johnson. Jonah Goldberg writes that “most conservatives never really understood what compassionate conservatism was, beyond a convenient marketing slogan,” and the “reality” is “that there was nothing behind the curtain.”

GOP Struggles To Define Its Message for 2006 Elections By Dan Balz and Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writers

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said the root of the problem is a failure of Washington Republicans to stick to principles, saying that his party risks losing power because it has done “a pretty poor job” of executing its small-government philosophy. “Republicans just need to take stock, go back and realize that the American people elected them because of their principles, and when you do not adhere to those principles, the American people are just as likely to turn you out and choose someone else.”

Lately, the drift Perry described has been on glaring display almost daily. …

Because of these realities, Republicans have adopted a midterm strategy designed to avoid making the election a national referendum on their performance or one that focuses on their policy divisions. Their goal is to concentrate less on the kind of positive message they have challenged the Democrats to produce and more on framing a choice that says, however unhappy voters may be right now with the Republicans’ leadership, things would be worse if Democrats were in charge.