What We Have Here Is A Failure of Deficit Hawkery

Filed in Delaware, National by on February 10, 2013

Did anyone notice this article on Friday — where Senator Carper is committing to working for continued funding of the deepening dredge of the Delaware while the US Government is getting ready (prioritizing projects) for the cutbacks required by the sequester. And can I remind you that Senator Carper voted FOR said sequester?

Is this theater or is this serious? Frankly, I should be surprised that this reporter didn’t ask Senator Carper why he is in favor of continuing to spend money on this project while he is so busy trying to have his concern for reining in government spending seen in every corner of the land. No doubt this deepening project is important locally — at least the boosters of the PA ports see an opportunity to compete for larger ships — but Senator Carper needs to remember that he is a fan of reining in spending. Especially spending on Social Security which doesn’t add a penny to the deficit or debt until 2028 or so. While this deepening project certainly won’t be paying for itself anytime soon. You’d think that he would be grateful for opportunities to save the government money — except that Senator Carper is the poster boy of the deficit hawks. He is interested in projects that help to benefit his business special interest groups, but not interested in making sure programs of interest to the people he has asked to vote for him routinely are at all made safe to deliver on their longstanding promises.

If you see the Senator any time soon — ask him about this. Ask him why he is so quick to spend more government money on a project with little chance of paying for itself and against the minor work it would take to stop destabilizing Social Security.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

Comments (6)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. kavips says:

    Every representative knows you cut expenses for other people and spend money in your own state. Personally I have no problem with that.

  2. Anon says:

    The deepening project must be “to big to fail”, especially now that the tar sand oil are coming by rail, diminishing the weak and false benefits of oil transport used to justify the project. Another dishonest pol, par for th e course in Delaware.

  3. Jason330 says:

    Aside from brain dead idiots like Grover Norquist, there aren’t any true deficit hawks. Mostly they are cynical hucksters and grifters like our Sentor.

  4. Cobain says:

    Wouldn’t a project like that help union workers like Longshoremen and Teamsters? A project like this that puts union workers to work can’t be classified as wasteful. I don’t understand the swipe. If he didn’t support it, he’d get attacked for not supporting workers.

    Most people supported the sequester as a tool to force congress to act. I don’t think its fair to say that supporting that tactic means that you support every draconian cuts. I think you can be a deficit hawk and ensure that tax payer dollars are spent wisely, without wanting to completely destroy the social safely net. I don’t think that its hypocritical to say that government should try its best to spend money wisely for things that promote job growth. Whether its R&D or infrastructure (the port project). I can still be a deficit hawk and think those projects are worthwhile, Right?

  5. bamboozer says:

    The truth remains that neither party is all that interested in balancing the budget, unless they can do it on the backs of their enemies.

  6. cassandra_m says:

    I don’t think that is quite true. Certainly the GOP wants to balance the budget on the backs of the people who can least afford it AND get some progress on their goal of destroying Social Security and Medicare. The Democrats want to look like they are balancing the budget, but have way too many competing interests to take an effective side here.

    And I think that Cobain here needs to get up to speed on the long term economic possibilities of this dredge project. They probably aren’t much, even though the State of PA thinks otherwise. But being a deficit hawk in the here and now means that you have to make choices on how money gets spent. Saying you are for everything yet not in the business is paying for everything is how we got here in the first place. And Tom Carper looking for more deficit spending while telling people he would support cutting a program that doesn’t contribute to the deficit or the debt — Social Security — is about calling out the essential hypocrisy of his position.