Make a deal with the devil and you're the junior partner.

So says Dick Armey in a WSJ editorial dated today. Like a lot of other folks, I voted for Dubya for two reasons: (1) More dead terrorists and (2) Lower taxes. I believe Bush is delivering on the first reason; I fear for the second. One premise that enables the federal tax rate to remain low is small government. No one in their right [ed: is that a pun?] mind can possibly claim that the current administration and congress are practicing, or even heading toward, small government. Consider:

...we have embarrassing spectacles like the 2005 highway bill. Costing $295 billion, it is 35% larger than the last transportation bill, fueled by 6,371 earmarks doled out to favored political constituencies. By comparison, the 1987 highway bill was vetoed by Ronald Reagan for containing relatively few (152) earmarks. Overall, even excluding defense and homeland security spending, the growth rate of discretionary spending adjusted for inflation is at a 40-year high.

Armey argues that there is precious little difference between the Republicans and Democrats these days. I'll agree with him with one exception, that being the GWOT. There's a wave of discontent out here in Red State Land, and it ain't all about the war. I would certainly hate to see the Democrats gain control of the House or the Senate in 2006, or the White House in 2008. But it's entirely possible. When wise old men like Dick Armey speak out, Frist, Delay (yeah, I know. But he's pulling the majority's strings behind the scenes. Bet on it.), and the rest of the Republican leadership better listen. That goes for Dubya, too.

Update: There are those that might consider what I wrote above an empty threat. One might ask "You'd actually vote for someone who would belong to Pelosi's caucus?" The answer, speaking strictly for myself: maybe. The more likely scenario, speaking broadly, is members of the conservative/Republican coalition would just stay home, particularly in an off-year election. The Republican coalition is fragile. Contrary to what a lot of liberals think, we aren't all right-wing religious wackos intent on establishing a Talibanesque Christian theocracy. A significant number of us are small-government, pro-business, free-market economic conservatives that are also, for lack of a better term, foreign policy hawks. It's that contingent of the Republican party, plus a large number of independents, that the current administration and congressional leadership are in danger of losing. And Republicans cannot win elections if they don't bring along a lot of independents. Remember what Ross Perot did to Bush pere in 1992? It could happen again.