Any illusion that the Republican Party harbors any devotion to fiscal conservatism certainly was shattered by the recent enactment of the highway and energy bills, which are two of the most egregious examples of federal spending in recent memory.

Republicans achieved their legislative majority, in part, by railing against an overbloated federal budget and vowing to reign in profligate Democratic pork-barrel spending. Now that they find themselves in control of the legislative and executive branches of government, they cannot wean themselves from the federal trough, out of fear that they will be unable to claim credit for bringing federal projects back home to their constituents.

The recently beleaguered Sen. Lindsey Graham brought himself back into the good graces of South Carolina Republicans by bragging that the Senate filibuster compromise that he helped broker allowed the Senate to pass these two inflated pieces of legislation. A reassured Graham declared, “Ladies and gentlemen, we’re back in business.”

Someone should remind Sen. Graham that was not the business he campaigned on or was elected to carry out. (To be fair, Sen. Jim DeMint also voted for these two monstrosities.)

The energy bill, which comes at a cost of $66 billion, exemplifies the worst in corporate welfare by subsidizing any idea, whether good or bad, that offers any hope of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The incentives and tax breaks offered by the energy bill will surely be a boon to big business and huge corporate farmers, who stand to profit greatly from ethanol subsidies. But it is doubtful that ordinary consumers, who soon will be paying $3 for a gallon of gas, will ever see any tangible benefits.

Republicans once championed the free market and its ability to efficiently solve the pressing economic issues of the day. Now it seems they cannot wait to catch a flight back home to explain how lucky we are to have them to hand out our tax dollars to multi-billion dollar corporations.

Despite all the faults of the energy bill, its price looks like pocket change compared to the $286.4 billion federal highway bill, which is the most expensive public-works program in American history. This bill is loaded with 6,371 special projects, or “earmarks,” that will cost more than $24 billion. In contrast, the 1982 highway bill contained 10 earmarks costing $362 million.

Some modest comfort might be taken in the bill if the federal fuel taxes we pay each time we fill up were going to essential projects needed to sustain the national economy. Instead, we must swallow the fact that our tax money is helping pay for a $250 million bridge in Alaska that will connect an island of 50 residents to a town of 8,000 people. In fact, the state of Alaska, which is the third least-populous state in the nation, receives the fourth-most in earmarks at $941 million. This is due, in large part, to the fact that the chairman of the House Transportation Committee is Alaskan Don Young — who, by the way, is a Republican.

Nor can we expect President Bush, the leader of the Republican Party, to stand up to such blatant pork-barrel spending. Unlike President Reagan, who vetoed a highway bill in the 1980s because of excessive spending, President Bush refuses to pick up his veto pen. Instead, Bush embraced the bills and declared them necessary for economic growth.

At a Caterpillar manufacturing plant, Bush signed the highway bill into effect, declaring, “I’m here to sign the highway bill because I believe by signing this bill, when it’s fully implemented, there’s going to be more demand for the machines you make here.”

Obviously, the Republican Party has abandoned any pretension of being the party of laissez-faire principles and has become the party of Keynesian, big-spending economics.

Mr. Gaskins practices labor and employment law at Fisher & Phillips in Columbia. Prior to that, he worked in election and campaign finance law at the Republican National Committee.