Big Spenders

Republicans are taking more heat over their big appetite for spending:

What has vexed conservatives most is the 31.5 percent growth since Bush took office in discretionary spending. That is the one-third of the budget lawmakers approve annually for defense, domestic security, school aid and everything else except Social Security and other benefits.

Such spending grew by an annual average of 3.4 percent during Clinton's eight years.

Further infuriating conservatives, Bush and the Republican-run Congress have enacted a $400 billion, 10-year enlargement of Medicare; $87 billion in expanded benefits for farmers; and $40 billion for increased veterans' payments and the Air Force's leasing and buying of refueling tankers.

More details here.

A few recent Reason links on the topic (from vexed libertarians):

Ride the Death Spiral Vicious cycles in entitlement spending.

Medicare Fraud Reforming our way to bankruptcy.

W Is for What? Bush may be compassionate, but he's no conservative.

Body Snatchers How can you tell the evil party from stupid party?

Comments

[thoreau]

It doesn't matter how bad the Republicans might seem, the Democrats are worse. So the Republicans deserve our unequivocal support no matter what.

Don't listen to any notions of divided government. Some might say that Congressional Republicans will show backbone if the President is a Democrat, but don't listen to that nonsense. Who ever heard of rivalry and competition producing checks and balances? And don't listen to any so-called data on how non-defense discretionary federal spending grew more slowly under Clinton. You don't need some academic statistical mumbo jumbo to know that the Democrats are ALWAYS worse than Republicans.

Finally, you must trust that the GOP has a clever plan in all of this. They're going to spend, spend, and spend some more to become more popular. Then, when they've amassed unchecked power, they'll finally have the necessary clout to cut federal spending and downsize the government.

Really. Honestly. You can trust them. They're from the government and they're here to help.

[R. C. Dean]

Y'know, thoreau, your ironic/sarcastic statement that "It doesn't matter how bad the Republicans might seem, the Democrats are worse" is true.

The fact that the Repubs suck doesn't negate the fact that the Dems suck harder. Clinton was something of an anomaly - you will find very few Dems these days whose notion of fiscal responsibility involves spending cuts rather than tax cuts. The idea that the Repubs in Congress would control spending under a Dem President for partisan political reasons is interesting, but I for one am unwilling to bet much on it.

The Dem attack on Bush's domestic policy has two prongs - raise taxes (by repealing the cut) and raise entitlements even more and faster. Nothing there to interest this libertarian. I'm not sure how putting a President in place with this as a mandate is anything a libertarian would support.

[Warren]

Yeah, the Reps are as corrupt as the Dems. What sickens me is that virtually none of the voting public gives a rat's ass.

[Bill G]

For most of my Libertarian voting life, the preference as to who actually gets elected has been a fairly easy choice of Republicans over Democrats, but I agree that GWB's actions have negatively tipped the balance back towards 50/50. I only wish that it had been the Democrats *positively* tipping the balance.

Out of control spending, Patriot Act abuses, Iraq invasion on one hand vs. tax cuts on the other.

Sadly, most of the Dems wouldn't improve on the negatives and would roll back the tax cuts.

[Russ]

One could always argue that the tax cuts (even without accompanying spending cuts) will serve to "starve the beast".

The Treasury does not have an unlimited capacity to borrow (unless the Federal Reserve gets invited to the money printing party). The deeper in debt the government becomes, and the more the US dollar falls, fewer and fewer willing lenders will be found to finance the government's accumulated deficits.

Unfortunately, the party always ends unpleasantly when the government can't borrow any more. Either taxes must rise, or money must be printed and the currencies devalued, otherwise the entitlements can't be paid.

[R. C. Dean]

One could always argue that the tax cuts (even without accompanying spending cuts) will serve to "starve the beast".

Yeah, one could, except that it has never worked that way in the past, so why should the future be different?

[yelowd]

"Starve the beast"? Hello.... welcome to supply side economics part II. While I welcome any tax cut, Bush Inc. is not cutting taxes based on principle anymore than supply siders pushed for tax cuts. They are keynesians. The cuts will increase the gross output of the economy thereby providing more tax dollars to pay for the increased spending.. This is old, old theory. Spend/borrow in the down times, save and "trim" in the up times. - maybe it works, but we'll never know in a democracy.

[Andrew]

Thoreau

I like you. I enjoy your posts, despite the cheap sarcasm. But I don't get it...Dean?

I don't watch television-- don't own one (borrowed one for the Afghan and Iraq wars, and returned it both times when the actual campaigns were concluded). All my knowledge of public affairs comes from print and the Net.

Until this afternoon I had absolutely never seen or heard Howard Dean as a person (only still photos. I went to the gym and saw him in the locker-room{

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!

I am reminded of Jerome Turcille's comment on Hubert Humphrey-- "That guy is Wesley Mouch...on roller-skates!"

If a libertarian was vetting Democrats, Lieberman strikes me as the only plausible candidate-- at least he's a free-trader.

But then perhaps you guys are rather single-pointedly vexed about a war that is over, and a Patriot Act that doesn't do anything.

I rather doubt a fresh president Dean will repeal the Patriot Act, I rather think he'd keep the troops in Iraq longer than Bush (and put them under UN command), and find creative ways to infuse even more money into the process...while simultaneously squandering any foreign policy benefits our victory (worth it, or not) might have garnered.

That aside, he would be EVERYTHING you would expect a Democrat to be.

How does that make sense?

[Rick Barton]

During the Clinton administration the Republicans in congress(led by the fiscal conservatives) did the nation a great service when they said NO to Clinton's big government agenda, in stark contrast to the way they have yielded to Bush's . (In Bush's case this is probably due, at least in part, to the post 9/11 "rally round the Pres." sentiment.) OK; with Clinton there were also the admonitions of Alan Greenspan, but still if we didn't have a rebellious GOP congress back then we would have a lot more government and a lot less freedom now. ( Bush sure as Hell wouldn't have repealed a Clinton, big government legacy)

Bush is terrible and NOT worth fighting for. But, it's also true that the GOP congress people tend to be much better then the Dems. and many of these Republicans ARE worth fighting for.

Check out NTU.org (National Taxpayer Union). For instance, the most frugal 25 or 30 members of the house who win the NTU's "taxpayers friend award" are all Republicans. Same for the 9 or 10 award winners in the senate. Also, check out the huge difference between the two party's members in aggregate.

The best strategy seems to be: 1. Encourage GOP congress people to vote for smaller government (Encourage Dems. too, when it's not a waste of time.) 2. Dump "RINOS" (Republicans in name only) and work to replace them with better Republicans. 3. Replace Democrats with Republicans. 4. Convert the Dems. to be a more liberty loving party. (a rather longer term project, to be sure)

[Rick Barton]

The question of spending cuts vs tax cuts (both at once are best of course) strikes me as both very interesting and important to liberty. Tax cuts do reduce the burden of the state in the near term but if they make the burden greater then it would have been in the future, because of the interest payment dynamics, they might, depending on how much greater, be argued to make the state more damaging to people.

Another argument against deficits is that if they are monetized the resulting inflation dilutes peoples income and this of course is also a tax. Also, this pushes folks into higher tax brackets! A number of years ago congress passed "indexing" (a conservative project) to adjust for and stop this "bracket creep". Is it still in effect?

Now, at least some tax cuts have been empirically shown to "pay for themselves", ie the capital gains tax rate cut, and they must surely be a good deal for tax payers as long as; the government doesn't use the extra revenue to initiate new spending!

If tax reductions don't pay for themselves and increase the deficit near term they can, at times, cause political pressure to build to restrain spending because deficits can be politically unpopular. It seems that Rothbard's advice to; cut taxes at any time for what ever reason, is probably strong.

[thoreau]

Andrew-

Where in my post did I endorse Dean? I simply refused to endorse the GOP. There's a difference.

Second, I have never suggested that a Democratic President would be better than George Bush if the Democrat is left unchecked. But a Democratic President kept in check by a partisan GOP Congress is far better than a George Bush allowed to run wild by a partisan GOP Congress. Personally, I have complete confidence that a Democratic President would do HORRIBLE things if left unchecked. I just think that the GOP Congress would keep him in check. Even if they lost their Congressional majorities (unlikely, but possible) there would still be Senate filibusters.

Finally, I freely acknowledge that your average GOP Congressman or Senator is more frugal than your average Democrat. But, for some reason, their fiscally conservative instincts are suppressed when George Bush asks for money. Some of them say "no", but far too many roll over backwards for him. I suspect that most of the capitulators would fight hard if a Democratic President asked for money.

[Andrew]

Thoreau

If you ran the term "libertarian" past 100 American VOTERS, how many of them could give even a hazily accurate account of the political philosophy denoted by the term?

Perhaps half would be unfamiliar with the word, entirely. Many of the rest would have a confused idea. Lots would think it meant "liberal", as Americans use the term...

...and more would, after you informed them that your last Presidential pick was Howard Dean.

Of course, these guy need to be edu-mo-cated. How does it help to educate them, to endorse a statist freak?

[thoreau]

Andrew-

If somebody said "So, as a libertarian, whom do you want for President" I would say that I don't like any of the major candidates, but I hope to see the government divided rather than united under a single party, so that the branches will be more likely to exercise checks and balances.

I wouldn't say that I want Dean to win, because I don't. If we must have a Democrat I'd rather it be a different Democrat. But I firmly believe that Bush must lose because the Congressional Republicans act more responsibly when they draft their own agenda rather than receiving their agenda from the White House.

At no point would I ever say anything good about Dean. I'd simply talk about the importance of the government being kept in check. I'd say that's a pretty authentic libertarian answer.

All in all, there's no way the above discussion could confuse somebody into thinking I'm pro-Dean. I'm pro-division, and I'd demonstrated by giving equal emphasis to a Democrat in the White House and a GOP Congress.

[Andrew]

Thoreau

When tiny and misundertood currents issue endorsements, the only practical value is educational...to make your own views more widely known and better understood.

Any Pesident gets automatic priority over some things, and that is MORE true of a Democrat (Republicans DON'T hard-ball Supreme Court appts.-- to choose a glaring example).
Foreign Policy?...well that is controversial, and Lieberman might be OK.
How about trade?
And Social Security reform?-- not on any Democrat's watch.

If this recession had occured in 97, are you so sure "divided government" would have restrained spending. Your principal argument is that a Republican pres. with a smaller caucus has restrained spending less than a Democratic predecessor facing a larger opposition (in vastly different circumstances). You keep saying you don't believe it yourself...and I don't blame you.

[Jason]

Thoreau,

In times other than these, I might be more inclined to agree with you. In fact, I voted for Howard Phillips (Constitution Party) in the 2000 Presidential campaign because I was disillusioned with the Republicans. But remember that the President is also head of state. Foreign relations are his responsibility. If we don't support Bush, we WILL end up with the Democrat nominee (most likely Dean). If that happens, we might as well just start calling ourselves a vice regency of the U.N.

[thoreau]

I should also add that those in the GOP who did NOT capitulate to Bush would continue their principled resistance if a Democrat were in the White House, but their less principled brethren might support them.

I'm not 100% convinced that the "checks and balances" theory of a Democratic President will work, but Bush hasn't been anything for a libertarian to get excited about except perhaps his foreign policy, which most people here either love or hate. (OK, there were the rather small tax cuts, but I'd like to see them complemented by some spending cuts to make "starve the beast" theory credible.)

It is worth noting that, according to the article which started this thread, federal spending is rising at a rate not seen since 1989-1991, when Papa Bush was in office with a Democratic Congress. Draw your own lessons.