Pop Politico: “Priorities”

Ted Asregadoo February 4, 2008 26

Years ago, I used to teach political science to students whose level of interest ran the range from apathetic to enthusiastic — with a good chunk in the middle just trying to get a decent grade on the way to getting a degree. Those on the apathetic end of the spectrum would often drop the course, those in the middle would muddle though, and those who were enthusiastic would, as you can probably guess, excel and go on to do great work in school. Some semesters there would be a larger group of enthusiastic students; others, the apathetic types would sit there until that last possible drop date and then they would be gone — leaving me with an embarrassingly paltry number of students. It was a game that was played at this particular community college, and the game was “Priorities.” What did you want out of life? What were your priorities during college? For the apathetic types, their priority was to keep their parents off their backs by demonstrating that they were motivated enough to go to college, but because of a series of circumstances, life got too busy and they had to drop — but not before renewing their car insurance to get the student discount!

For the college, its priority was, as one of the Deans told me, to “keep butts in those chairs — ” because that’s how the college got money from the state. For me, the priority was “pie in the sky” idealism. I guess I was a true believer in a mild form of “positive liberty” I use the term “mild” because I’ve studied enough history and politics to know that to be a true believer (without the caveat of a term like “mild’) carries with it the danger of extremism. But I really believed that, armed with knowledge of both the theories and practices of politics in the world, students would become better citizens. Having informed citizens who could filter the crap from the enormous amount of data that’s hurled at us everyday was, to me, an ideal worth being dedicated to.

While it’s easy to be drawn into the petty fights that erupt on a political campaign, in the halls of Congress, or in the daily slugfest of 24-hour cable news, what’s really important in politics is following the priorities of those who have the power to dole out money. Every year, the President and the Congress battle over how tax dollars are going to be spent, and every year one group blames the other for shortcomings. It’s the same old song and dance that newspapers duly report on page A4, but save the “sexy” stuff for the front page — which is a whole other set of priorities that I could easily get trapped into writing about.

This year is no different. We’re at the tail end of the Bush presidency, and for a guy who came in touting “compassionate conservatism” in 2000, looking at his budget priories for 2008, it’s clear that whatever compassionate intentions Bush had are now clearly dwarfed by the PNAC wing of his administration who’ve had war, global hegemony, and profit on their mind since the mid ’90s. Looking at the proposed budget Bush wants Congress to approve reveals priorities that clearly show he’s got war and virginity on his mind. To wit:

  • Pentagon +$35 billion
  • Department of Homeland Security +$46.4 billion
  • Department of Veterans Affairs +$36.6 billion
  • Food and Drug Administration +$2.4 billion
  • Head Start +$7.4 billion (some compassion showing here?)
  • Abstinence Education +$137 million (more virgins!)

The losers?

  • Heating subsidies to low income individuals and families -$570 million.
  • All other domestic program funded by Congress will either have budget freezes or decreases to pay for the increases in the priorities above.

X factors in this shell game:

  • $150 billion in economic stimulus package.
  • Declining tax revenues due to an economic downturn
  • $70 billion requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year the White House requested $200 billion for the wars, so it looks like there’s going to be supplemental budget request coming down the pike later this year.
  • Another banner year for budget deficits — which means asking the Chinese to extend our home equity line of credit to meet the shortfall.

The total budget is $3 trillion. Like Mr. T said, I pity the fool who becomes our next President. Because of the priorities of the Bush administration for the past seven years, we’re in an economic pickle that will take a good four years to dig out from under. The problem is that even if a Democrat becomes President, the cost of the wars is going to be high even if there’s a draw down of troops. That means whatever high hopes and campaign promises Clinton and Obama are making will have to wait as the legacy of Bush’s priorities linger well into the next administration.

Circle Jerks, “When the Shit Hits the Fan” (Download)

Golden Shower of Hits (Amazon)

  • http://jellyjules.com J

    Crap, the next president does have a lot to clean up. And more than financial and war, too. I hope they do some repair work to our poor battered constitution while they're at it. But when have you ever seen government give up power? Not too often.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    When I was in high school and we started trading in our horses for those new-fangled, gas drinking, metal horses, we had Civics Class. The whole purpose of the class was to teach what government was, what the individual's role in government was, the consequences of not being an active citizen in your community/country, etc.

    When the budget cuts came, Civics was the first to go. Can you imagine?

    Whoever gets the presidency will have a first-year of miserable approval ratings, no question. But there are a few things that will help. If the war is ended and the money vein is cauterized, that will help. Our world standing will start to heal and that will help too. The stabilization of tensions should also buoy world markets which, in turn, will bring economies back.

    But as with many things, perception directs reality, and if it is perceived that the country is back on track, it will help plans to actually get it there. However, there is a major stumbling block that the Bush administration wants to throw in the way…

    From Bill Moyers' Journal:
    KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: What is a protective over watch mission? And is this President going to commit the nation and try to commit his successors to a more permanent role in Iraq than the Democrats would like? What are the consequences of that? What does it mean? Euphemisms are worrisome. Protective over watch mission doesn't translate well into some clear conception of what we're going to do and what the commitment behind it entails. The second thing that I thought we ought to look at very carefully. “Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles.”

  • Dan

    True, dat. But “whatever compassionate intentions Bush had … “? Ha.

  • http://www.popdose.com 1Py_Korry1

    “Ha” indeed!

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    He talked a good game at the beginning. As with almost everything his administration has done, verbal tactics were just a cover for the stuff they didn't want you to know.

  • http://www.popdose.com 1Py_Korry1

    I believe it, Dw — the civics classes being cut, that is. One of the other problems with high school civics is that the classes are often taught by teachers who have no interest in the subject. Mine was taught by one of our gym teachers and he brought a level of boredom to the subject that he refined into an art.

  • http://www.popdose.com 1Py_Korry1

    You're right! Candidates talk a good game, but once in office they hold on pretty tightly to the power they have.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Exactly! No wonder young voters were so apathetic in 2000 & 2004.

    By the way – excellent work on this.

  • http://www.popdose.com 1Py_Korry1

    Thanks Dw!

  • http://objustanotherday.blogspot.com Gina

    Yes, I have often said that in one sense, I sort of hope it is a Repub that gets in, because the economy is tanking and whoever is in office will have to bear the brunt of the hard decisions that are going to have to be made.

    And, if it is a Dem, people are going to say, oh those Democrats made us suffer so, even though it was Bush who put us in the predicatment.

    Why? Because people have really short memories. Conveniently, or are they just stupid? I'm not sure.
    Oy.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    I agree with you in theory, but man, I can't afford it in practice!

  • Steve

    Congress passes the budget folks, and the Dems own both houses right now. And weren't they also supposed to get us out of the war?

    Bash the Repubs all you want – I will too. but don't forget to bash the Dems just as much. They passed this. Where are THEIR principals?

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Amen, Steve. In the future, I think we'll find out some heartbreaking stuff about the reasons why the Democrats rolled over and played dead for one of the most unpopular presidents in American history. That — and the sense of enraged entitlement they still display over Nader's candidacies — makes me hate the Dems even more than the withered crop of Republicans we've been stuck with for the last eight years. I disagree with everything the Republicans stand for — but at least they stand for SOMETHING.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    No, there really are no angels to be had here… As always, we go with the lesser of evils, but this year it seems we need to get as far from the current ideologies as possible.

    And as far as principals go, people who have them tend to stay as far away from politics as possible.

  • http://www.popdose.com 1Py_Korry1

    I'm no fan of many of the Dems in office now. In fact, I think the lingering stink of the DNC is pretty strong given John Kerry's tepid presidential bid and Gore's “run away from all the accomplishments that could get you elected” strategy in 2000. However, I do think we're getting to a point where many members of the Democratic Party aren't “Republican-lite” anymore.

    Yeah, the system is rigged as a duopoly (as Nader would say), but the Reps have demonstrated that radical elements can have a profound effect on the ideology of a political party — which, in turn, has an effect on the policies elected members of a party pushes through the system in the form bills that have a chance of becoming law.

    Nader, and those who supported him, stood for something, I presume. So why continue to be angry at the way he was treated by Dems 8 years ago, and instead use those ideas and passion to change things in the party that most closely reflects your politics?

    You know, it seems like we've been going back and forth on this since 2002. :-)

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    See, but I'm not JUST mad at them for the way they've blamed Nader for their problems. I'm also mad at them for the way they've failed, again and again, as an opposition party during an era in which we desperately needed checks and balances.

    I'm not sure either of the Big Two reflect my politics. Look at the way the Democrats act around Edwards and Kucinich — it's like someone farted. They're ashamed of their progressive wing. I like Obama and all, but I have no illusions about his leftward bearings. He seems like a pragmatic centrist with a younger face.

  • Steve

    Obama actually has the most liberal voting record of any Senator. I tend to be wary of folks on either side who are at the extreme – whether it be Pat Robertson or Ward Churchill. Extremists are dangerous.

  • http://www.popdose.com 1Py_Korry1

    Correction on my comment above. I meant to say “DLC” and not “DNC.”

    I completely agree with you on the Dems being a lousy opposition party. Call it a fault of positive liberty , but Dems really like that whole “let's make a deal” feature of our government. It has it downside (as you noted), but if Hillary or Obama becomes president, we won't have an administration that is actively trying to destroy our national government and our liberties while saying they are trying to save them.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Labor organizers used to be viewed as extremists. So did women who wanted to vote. So did black people who wanted to sit at the front of the bus. Extremists aren't always dangerous — our system of government depends on them for the ideas that are eventually adopted by the center.

  • http://www.punningpundit.com/ Punning Pundit

    Last year the Republican party set a record for the most filibusters ever in a single term. They're on place to double the previous filibuster record. The problem isn't the Democrats bowing to President Bush, its the realities of the mechanics of the Senate. Getting even as much as they have has been a major victory for Senate Democrats…

  • JonCummings

    I agree with what the “punning pundit” said above–on the war, SCHIP and many other issues, Congress has been held hostage by the Senate's filibuster rules. I wish the Dems had more balls–they should have long ago zeroed-out war funding and begun impeachment proceedings, perhaps in both cases to force Bush to compromise with them.

    They haven't done so largely because they're currently sitting on a lead in public opinion and waiting out the rest of the god-forsaken Bush administration, figuring a tidal wave will sweep more Republicans out of Congress (and the White House) this fall. They don't want to rock the boat and blow the natural advantage that comes from the vast majority of the public now thinking the Republicans are a bunch of incompetent, criminal boobs.

    Whether or not this is a good strategy, we'll see. It's frustrating in the meantime, that's for sure.

  • JonCummings

    I agree with what the “punning pundit” said above–on the war, SCHIP and many other issues, Congress has been held hostage by the Senate's filibuster rules. I wish the Dems had more balls–they should have long ago zeroed-out war funding and begun impeachment proceedings, perhaps in both cases to force Bush to compromise with them.

    They haven't done so largely because they're currently sitting on a lead in public opinion and waiting out the rest of the god-forsaken Bush administration, figuring a tidal wave will sweep more Republicans out of Congress (and the White House) this fall. They don't want to rock the boat and blow the natural advantage that comes from the vast majority of the public now thinking the Republicans are a bunch of incompetent, criminal boobs.

    Whether or not this is a good strategy, we'll see. It's frustrating in the meantime, that's for sure.

  • http://www.popdose.com 1Py_Korry1

    Correction on my comment above. I meant to say “DLC” and not “DNC.”

    I completely agree with you on the Dems being a lousy opposition party. Call it a fault of positive liberty , but Dems really like that whole “let's make a deal” feature of our government. It has it downside (as you noted), but if Hillary or Obama becomes president, we won't have an administration that is actively trying to destroy our national government and our liberties while saying they are trying to save them.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Labor organizers used to be viewed as extremists. So did women who wanted to vote. So did black people who wanted to sit at the front of the bus. Extremists aren't always dangerous — our system of government depends on them for the ideas that are eventually adopted by the center.

  • http://www.punningpundit.com/ Punning Pundit

    Last year the Republican party set a record for the most filibusters ever in a single term. They're on place to double the previous filibuster record. The problem isn't the Democrats bowing to President Bush, its the realities of the mechanics of the Senate. Getting even as much as they have has been a major victory for Senate Democrats…

  • JonCummings

    I agree with what the “punning pundit” said above–on the war, SCHIP and many other issues, Congress has been held hostage by the Senate's filibuster rules. I wish the Dems had more balls–they should have long ago zeroed-out war funding and begun impeachment proceedings, perhaps in both cases to force Bush to compromise with them.

    They haven't done so largely because they're currently sitting on a lead in public opinion and waiting out the rest of the god-forsaken Bush administration, figuring a tidal wave will sweep more Republicans out of Congress (and the White House) this fall. They don't want to rock the boat and blow the natural advantage that comes from the vast majority of the public now thinking the Republicans are a bunch of incompetent, criminal boobs.

    Whether or not this is a good strategy, we'll see. It's frustrating in the meantime, that's for sure.