show me the money
Matthew Yglesias calls Andrew Sullivan on the latter's claim that Lott's enthusiams for pork-barrel spending, which has made him unpopular with certain conservatives, makes him like a Democrat.
Now while GOP figures Sullivan likes more — George W. Bush, say — can't be accused of Lott-esque racial obtuseness, where's the evidence that anyone in the Republican Party is a bigger opponent of pork barrel spending than the Democrats are?
(via Charles Murtaugh, who also links an Economist article that notes: "There was a time when conservative Washington was full of Adam Smith enthusiasts who solemnly intoned that good government must promote competition, not hand out favours to cronies. But most of those young Reaganauts have long since taken the lobbying industry's dollar. Now the talk is of commerce, not competition.")
Even with the Republicans in charge of all three branches of government, does anyone really expect domestic spending to decrease, or even to see a massive reduction of programs withing a framework of static spending? I'll believe it when I see it. The Dems should hit the GOP hard on this: They're as much the party of income redistribution as they claim the Dems are; it's just that the dough goes to different constituencies. Couple that with the notion that the GOP hasn't laughed the idea of tax increases for lower incomes out of the room, and I predict their support will evaporate.