Ironically enough, not only do the two claims contradict each other, but I suspect that they are both false: DeLay is obviously wrong -- about 180-degrees wrong -- about having cut down on governmental fat; and we have no reason to think that Pres. Bush, with no pressure of a future election, will suddenly get serious about controlling unnecessary spending, either.

Actually, I think it's only without the pressure of an election that politicians might stand a chance of being more fiscally conservative. Were I to redesign the government, I would be tempted to create a legislative body elected for life, but empowered only to cut things out of the budget before the budget went to the president to be signed...

There was a post in Free Republic recently about Cong. John Hostettler, R-IN, voting against one of the Katrina relief bills. Someone commented in that thread sharing a long story about a Tennessee constituent of Davy Crockett's who decided to vote against him because he voted for a bill providing $20,000 of relief to Georgetown families displaced due to a large fire. He chided Crockett thus:

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

We would do well to consider this advice under the current circumstances.

JC,

Well said. Something vague was rumbling around in my head after both DeLay's comments and Bush's various statements, but I had not yet put it in such sharp relief.

As far as I can tell, the US (federal or states) will not be rebuilding the Gulf Coast. China will. Chinese oligarchs will buy our Treasury bills and thus pay for our rebuilding and someday we will pay them back...with 10% interest.

Glenn, you should edit that post slightly. It will be Bush's campaign contributors who will be rebuilding the gulf coast at an extremely high profit in a fashion incredibly similar to the way the Iraqi CPA worked, and they will be paid by the Chinese.

I agree with philosopher. I'm not sure which claim is more absurd, Bush's claim that they're going to cut spending or DeLay's claim that there is no more spending to cut.

United States citizens will be paying Chinese investors principal and interest to give large sums of money to well-connected firms like Halliburton to rebuild some portion of the Gulf Coast.

A separate reality continues to hold sway in Washington. Tom Oliphant reported on the NewsHour friday nite that Nancy Pelosi has tried to suggest a way to pay for the NO rebuild with this idea from the Bush I era:

"one suggestion that happens to be what Bush's dad did with the savings and loan bailout and that's pick a number and sell long-term bonds. Well, if you can do it for the S&L's, why can't you do it for a program like this one, and nobody paid any attention."

Kuznicki's comment summarizes what has been bothering me about the GOP since I was a child. The Republican voters claim to want smaller government, and I think they would accept it. Why can't Republican politicians deliver on that?

Yes indeed, we've pared it down to the worst deficits in history along with the most egregious mismanagement of government ever.We really pared it down!

Speaking of Katrina, deficits, and tax cuts:

Senators Sessions and Kyl are apparently corpse shopping, looking for a wealthy casualty of Katrina as evidence against the estate tax.

A vote on the permanent repeal of the estate tax was sidelined because of how it would look in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

As taxes go, I think the estate tax is one of the good ones. Certainly I think a laborer has a greater claim to his wages at the end of the week than an heir does to a decedent's estate at the end of his life. Any revenue we can afford to lose should be used to reduce the income tax long before we look to eliminating or reducing the estate tax.