ANOTHER PEEK AT THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION

Jonanathan Chait in his new book, The Big Con, directly reminded me of an AP report from 2002 that provides a glimpse into the free-spending policies of the "conservative" GOP.

From Lexis-Nexis:


August 5, 2002, Monday, BC cycle
BYLINE: By DAVID PACE, Associated Press Writer
SECTION: Washington Dateline
LENGTH: 1200 words
DATELINE: WASHINGTON

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.

Rather than pork barrel projects for new GOP districts, 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.

The result was an average of $612 million more in federal spending last year for congressional districts represented by Republicans than for those represented by Democrats, the analysis found.

In terms of services, for example, that translates into more business loans and farm subsidies, and fewer public housing grants and food stamps.

"There is an old adage," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas. "To the victor goes the spoils."

In Republican House districts that received an average of $3.86 billion in 1995, spending ballooned to $5.84 billion in 2001, a more than 50 percent increase, the analysis found. Over the same period, spending in Democratic districts on average increased only 34 percent, from $3.89 billion to $5.23 billion.

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.

For instance, spending on child care food programs was slashed 80 percent; public and Indian housing grants were virtually eliminated; rental housing loans for rural areas and special benefits for disabled coal miners were cut by two-thirds; and the food stamp program was cut by a third.

Programs like flood insurance are reported in terms of the government's total liability, should it have to pay insurance claims. While that inflates the overall spending numbers, the trend of bigger spending increases in Republican districts remained whether government insurance programs were counted or not.

From 1995 to 2001, average federal spending without insurance in Republican districts increased 41 percent, compared with 27 percent in Democratic districts.