Lots more evidence that Democrats (surprise, surprise) aren't the "fiscally responsible" party they claimed to be in the last election.

Democrats trying to massively expand a federal health care entitlement program, despite the fact that the program's supposedly "underfunded" nature would disappear in an instant if it were to refocus on its original mandate and stop covering adults and the middle class: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009981

Schip was conceived--or at least sold--as a way to insure children from low-income families that aren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Included as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Schip began as a federal block grant of about $40 billion over 10 years. [...] The Bush Administration wants to add $4.8 billion to the Schip budget, bringing it to $30 billion over the next five years. Democrats want to see that and raise by $50 billion to $60 billion. [...] But this "crisis" arose because some states have grossly exceeded Schip's mandate. They are using the program to expand government-subsidized coverage well beyond poor kids--to children from wealthier families and even to adults.

Congress may be removing those embarrassing spinach and peanut subsidies from the Iraq war funding bill, but they're still leaving in the extra $25 billion in non-emergency spending (like more farm subsidies) -- never mind that as non-emergency items these could be dealt with as part of the 2008 budget instead: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/23/congress.iraq.ap/index.html

As part of the same measure, congressional negotiators also tentatively agreed on about $25 billion not requested by Bush for medical care for troops and veterans, aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, farm disaster relief and other programs. The add-ons have provoked a separate veto threat from Bush. Negotiators dropped provisions ridiculed by the president such as aid to peanut farmers and spinach producers.

Whoops! So much for those promises of getting rid of earmarks, as one brave GOP senator's repeated efforts to pass earmark reform are repeatedly blocked by Dem leadership: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/04/19/keeping_their...

First-term Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina rose on the Senate floor shortly before noon to request unanimous consent for immediate enactment of a rule requiring full disclosure of earmarks. But the Democratic leadership was forewarned. Just before DeMint took the floor, the Appropriations Committee -- led by Sen. Robert Byrd, the Senate's king of pork -- issued its own flawed anti-earmark regulation. Then, Majority Whip Dick Durbin objected to passage of the DeMint rule on grounds that ethics should not be considered on a piecemeal basis.

[...]

Shortly after the Democrats took power on Capitol Hill, the Senate on Jan. 16 approved, 98 to 0, the DeMint rule, requiring full disclosure of earmarks, as an amendment to the lobbying and ethics reform bill. [... But] the ethics bill was bogged down in the House (which normally will pass anything the Democratic leadership wants). The DeMint rule was an amendment to nothing. Legislation was going through the congressional pipeline with undisclosed earmarks, as requests for earmark applications still did not require transparency. Consequently, on April 12, DeMint brought up his rule for passage under unanimous consent. Freshman Sen. Bob Menendez, on duty for the Democratic leadership, objected. Menendez claimed, reporter John Stanton wrote in the Roll Call newspaper, "that despite numerous news stories and notifications from DeMint that he intended to seek the UC [unanimous consent], Democrats had not been given adequate time to review the proposed amendment."

And on the same topic: http://www.examiner.com/a-691052~Earmark_stench_is_getting_worse.html?ci...

Remember right after the November elections when the Senate’s longtime “King of Pork,” Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., promised an “earmark moratorium” on 2007 spending? [...] Now we find that not only has the moratorium on 2007 spending bill earmarks been forgotten, senators are in the process of larding up 2008 bills as well. Both the Senate and the House have passed earmark reforms, but the Democratic leadership in both chambers is taking its time in resolving differences between the two measures. So the rules Kratz reminds senators to follow are the same ones that were in place when the GOP sowed its culture of corruption. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Turns out that those supposedly "moderate" or "conservative" Democrats who won in Bush districts are voting the liberal party line: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20297

The Democratic budget, with its $400 billion tax increase, passed narrowly, 216-210, with the help of such other moderates as Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), Chris Carney (D-Pa.), Charlie Wilson (D-Ohio). Neither they nor any of the House Democrats supported the conservative substitute budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which curtailed entitlement spending and kept taxes down.

...

In two separate votes dear to the heart of union bosses, all 10 of our freshmen voted the party line. All opposed an amendment by Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.) intended to speed up the stalled reconstruction of the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina by exempting federal contractors and grantees from government wage-controls that are favored by unions -- a policy known as the “prevailing wage.” In theory, this policy is supposed to reduce the incentive to hire non-union labor to save money. In practice, it results in lower profit margins and therefore less work being done to rebuild.

The more far-reaching vote, however, would eliminate workers’ rights to hold secret ballot elections to unionize their shops. After spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Democratic candidates, union lobbyists pushed hard for this bill -- known as the “Employee Free Choice Act” -- which would allow union lobbyists to take over workplaces through a system known as “card-check.” Under that system, a union need only convince (or as opponents would say, coerce) 51 % of affected employees to sign a card in favor of union representation, in order to represent and collect dues from the employees.

Democrats have talked up the "tax gap" as a way to pay for more government spending without raising tax rates. Of course the idea that there's a lot of money to be found here is complete hogwash, so in reality this extra spending will simply increase the deficit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR200704...

Speaking to a Senate committee led by Democrats eager to raise cash without raising tax rates, Paulson said it was "unrealistic" for them to expect to collect hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal tax gap, the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid. "The tax gap is simply not a pot of gold that we can dip into every time we want to pay for a new or expanded program," Paulson told the Senate Finance Committee. "Nor should it be viewed as an easy solution to existing challenges," such as replacing the alternative minimum tax.

...

During testimony, Paulson said other tax-gap ideas floating around Washington "would be unnecessarily painful, expensive and time-consuming for taxpayers." Politicians haven't endorsed the more extreme notions, but Paulson cited some anyway -- steps such as eliminating most cash transactions or tripling the number of IRS audits. "In theory, each of these measures could bring in some additional revenue," Paulson said. "But the cost of compliance for individuals and businesses -- most of whom already pay what they owe -- would far outweigh the gains."