Back in the Clinton days, self-styled "deficit hawks" decried efforts to pass universal health coverage on the grounds that doing so might deepen the deficit. Now, many of the same supposed deficit hawks happily vote for budget-busting giveaways that benefit their party's ideological and business allies. Politicians who can't say 10 words without praising "free markets" back big subsidies that will tilt the market toward their contributors. Few challenge their capitalist credentials. Building transit, roads and schools, and helping the young and the poor to buy health insurance and get a better education -- these might justify deficits to finance investments for the next generation. Sending us into a hole to buy an election and to help well-connected interest groups just doesn't seem worth it. The New Big Spenders are very different from the old ones. How long will it take us to understand that?
December 7, 2003 7:09 AM
