i would have thought this was obvious
Seeing the Forest reacts to the following Bush's statement from his economic forum (and thanx for the links!):
More money spent in Washington means less money in the hands of American families and entrepreneurs; less money in the hands of risk-takers and job creators.
STF is dismayed:
What? The guy who signed the farm bill said this? Does he think that the money the government spends disappears into outer space?
Well, no...when the GOP is is charge, that money doesn't disappear; it's merely redistributed to corporations and GOP districts.
The 1994 revolution that gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives produced a seismic shift in federal spending, moving tens of billions of dollars from Democratic to GOP districts, an Associated Press analysis shows...the change was driven mostly by Republican policies that moved spending from poor rural and urban areas to the more affluent suburbs and GOP-leaning farm country, the computer analysis showed...In terms of services, for example, that translates into more business loans and farm subsidies, and fewer public housing grants and food stamps.
When Democrats last controlled the House and wrote the 1995 budget, the average Democratic district got $35 million more than the average GOP district. By 2001, average federal spending in Republican districts was $612 million more than in Democratic districts.
And of course, none of that takes into account tax cuts that are tilted toward the wealthy (like the estate tax).
Make no mistake about it...the Republicans aren't really interested in cutting the size of government, merely certain parts, while lavishing spending on others. In the words of Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey:
There is an old adage: To the victor goes the spoils.
Update: More on GOP income redistribution from Slate.