This Week’s Unanswered Questions (102205)

Another installment in a nearly-regular series of mysteries and pseudo-mysteries (usually 3-4) this inquiring mind would like to have answers for (some links included may require free registration):

QUESTION 1: Remind me again–Which party has control of the White House and Congress?

From the Club for Growth, citing a Chris Edwards book, “Downsizing the Federal Government“:

Number of Pork Projects in Federal Spending Bills
2005 - 13,997
2004 - 10,656
2003 - 9,362
2002 - 8,341
2001 - 6,333
2000 - 4,326
1999 - 2,838
1998 - 2,100
1997 - 1,596
1996 - 958
1995 - 1439

On Friday, again from CFG, The Senate could not even do something sensible that would have helped Katrina-victimized Louisiana directly and tangibly:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Senate tonight defeated an amendment by Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) by a vote of 15 to 82 that would have blocked funding for two extravagant projects in Alaska and directed $125 million from those projects to the repair of the Twin Spans Bridge over Lake Pontachartrain which was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. The Coburn amendment was offered to H.R. 3058, the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary and District of Columbia Appropriations Act.

How bad is it? Daily Kos had an opportunity to get his licks in, and he took it:

A $223 million bridge serving 50 people was more important to these people than rebuilding storm-battered New Orleans.

Simply unconscionable. Those who voted against these amendments have zero credibility on issues of fiscal responsibility. Zero.

Could the fact that elements of the far left are disgusted mean that even free-spending Democrats are vulnerable in the next election cycle? That seems far-fetched, but I’d like to see credible fiscally conservative primary challengers across the political spectrum this spring. Or will it take a third party to stop this nonsense?

Update: Larry Kudlow–“I can tell you right now, after having coffee with a dozen or so Republican Senators on Tuesday morning, that not only are these pork-barrel spending cuts up in the air, so are the tax cut extensions.” Given that taxes have been at their current level for almost two years, here is the translation: “GOP Senators are more willing to allow tax increases to take effect than they are to eliminate even the most outrageous examples of pork-barrel spending.”

QUESTION 2: Are Americans Becoming Europeans?

Given the spoiled-brat results described in Question 1, it doesn’t seem unthinkable. Neither does Jim Glassman, but his worry is with our international standing in science and engineering:

My concern is with Americans. Is it inevitable that, as we grow more prosperous, we will become more like Europe — losing initiative, insisting that our governments coddle us?

I worry that we are beginning to see the initial signs of just such a turn for the worse. A distinguished 20-member panel of experts convened by the National Academies, America’s top science advisory group, has warned in a new study that the U.S. “could soon lose its privileged position” as the world’s top innovator and growth engine. With competitors “who live just a mouse click away,” we stand to lose high-paying jobs, especially to Asia.

Key statistics: The number of U.S. doctorates in science and engineering peaked in 1998. In 1970, the U.S. accounted for more than half such degrees; by 2010, just 15 percent. By 2010, China will produce more science and engineering doctoral graduates that we will.

The whiners think that we can opt out of a globalized world, cocoon ourselves in protectionism. In fact, if we take that course, the crack-up will come sooner.

….. America has a choice: more like Europe, or more like Asia. Actually, Asia has become more like America in recent years, so the real choice is whether we want to be complacent Europeans or to our hard-working, compassionate, imaginative American selves.

Our underachieving elementary and secondary schools don’t help.

QUESTION 3: Guess who’s paying in this deal?

The UAW and GM reached an accord (is that a bad pun?) on health care, and it’s worth noting who’s getting socked harder:

Under terms of the deal — which GM has said would reduce its retiree health-care benefits by about $15 billion and result in a 25 percent cut in the company’s hourly health-care liability — health care will no longer be free for GM’s hundreds of thousands of hourly retirees, their spouses and dependents.

But most will be required to pay no more than a maximum of $752 per year for their family health-care coverage, including monthly premiums and drug co-payments, according to the UAW.

It said retirees with GM pension incomes of $8,000 and less, whose GM pension benefit rate is $33.33 per month per year of service or less, will continue to get their health care free of charge.

Coverage for active GM hourly employees will continue with few changes, although drug co-payments will go up by $5 in most cases and they will be required to defer or forgo $1 an hour in future pay increases to help fund their health-care coverage.

The GM-UAW health-care agreement will remain in effect until 2007, when the union’s labor contract with the world’s largest automaker comes up for renewal.

The hourly workers, who get to vote on contract changes, took a very small hit. The retirees, who I’m fairly certain don’t get to vote (correct me if I’m wrong), are absorbing the brunt of the cost increases. Coincidence? I think not.

Update: From The Wall Street Journal (requires subscription), the union filed a lawsuit against GM for the express purpose of solidifying the agreement, because it “is hoping the lawsuit will prevent legal challenges by retirees to the cuts it says it negotiated on their behalf.” So the retirees don’t get to vote.