Grand Outlay Party

From today's New York Times:

Forty Republican House members gathered to hash out how to press Mr. Bush and the Congressional leadership to deal with spending increases that they say are running out of control and a deficit that is reaching alarming proportions…

"The Republican party has long been the party of small government," an aide to a senior Republican senator said, "but the era of small government has ended for the Republican Party."

Referring to Mr. Bush's call on Tuesday night for athletes to stop using performance-enhancing drugs, the aide said, "Unfortunately, the president's ban on steroids doesn't apply to the appropriators."

For more on this, check out John Hood's article yesterday.

Comments

[Zathras]

A couple of thoughts on spending and the Republicans:

All the "specific ideas" for cutting spending that aren't violently unpopular involve line items that don't cost very much money. You can campaign against "pork," as John McCain is doing, but even if you win some battles it isn't going to change the fiscal situation that much. Theoretically you could make that happen, to a small extent anyway, by insisting on the "regular order" of the appropriations process -- appropriations can't be made for items not considered by an authorizing committee. McCain and others have urged this as well, but the point is so arcane that hardly anyone outside Congress can track the discussion, and of course the appropriators unanimously oppose giving up any of the power they now have.

The other thought is that you can't consistently argue for restraining spending and not restraining tax cuts (well, you can if you are one of those people who mourns the fact that the government does things it didn't in the good old days, say during the Jefferson administration. But we're talking the real world here). Hardly any Republican is standing up now making the point that all of the Bush tax cuts, and more besides, are fiscally irresponsible. If that whole package isn't fiscally irresponsible, who cares whether the Department of Labor's budget grows by 4 per cent instead of 5? The same argument, incidentally, holds for Pentagon spending. Building a half-dozen F-22s wipes out all the savings you would get by freezing the budgets of several whole departments -- the point being that if you are talking about really being for fiscal restraint instead of just trying to look as if you are you cannot ignore huge sections of the federal budget.

So what's involved in really fighting a campaign for fiscal responsibility? It's too big a job for one Congressman or Senator to handle on his own, and a group of them would have to stick together and coordinate very closely under tremendous pressure not just from the administration but from the Democrats as well. This points to GOP conservatives' discontent over Bush's free-spending ways being expressed by the same kind of ineffectual grumbling that left-wing Democrats adopted toward Clinton when he never made a second try at health care reform.

[Andrew]

A lot of the "divided-government" theorists, when they think "democrat", think Bill Clinton...forgetting what an atypical PECULIAR guy he was. Clinton had such a unique ability to connect with the American public (AND this seemed to be all he wanted) he could remain popular "on the cheap", without spending much money.
Al Gore, by contrast, threw gobs of money at California and other important electoral states, because he had nothing of Clinton's charisma.

It almost worked, and you have to imagine what a declining economy, and a far feebler response to 9/11 would have done to the federal budget in a Gore administration-- sure, he wouldn't have spent $80 billion liberating Iraq, but I can picture Gore spending $80 billion in New York City, alone!

Come on! With zero growth for two straight years (and NO significant tax cuts) you can be sure there would be PLENTY of "fiscal stimulus"-- can you imagine what would be happening during this campaign year?

And if you think the same Republican caucus you disparage now, would be breathing fire at President Gore (after 9/11?) because he was a Democrat, you're crazy: it doesn't work that way.

There is no Clintonism without Clinton: it was based in his own unique combination of strengths (THAT was the "teflon-coated" President) and weaknessess...talk about a guy "detached" from policy-- no wonder he couldn't get spending, or much of anything else passed!

Now ask yourself what Democrat you see (in the race or not) who more nearly resembles (hell...REMOTELY resembles) Clinton, as opposed to Gore?

Case closed.

[matt]

Dan,

OK, so Reagan, and Bush I and II didn't "pass" the budgets. So what? Veto it. By not vetoing bills sent to them they are signing off on whatever the congress passes. To me, if a president fails to stop the growth of government when he has a chance, then he sure as hell can be accused of helping to grow it.

[thoreau]

It is true that Congress passes budgets, not Presidents. But a few points:

1) Presidents make budget requests. Those budget requests are by no means the final word on the budget, but they do have an effect on the process. Bush hasn't been very responsible in his requests.

2) Presidents can advocate new programs or rail against them. Bush hasn't been talking about cutting many programs, and he's spent a lot of time throwing his weight behind various proposals. (e.g. prescription drugs)

3) Presidents do have a veto pen, and Bush hasn't exactly been exhausting the ink supply in that pen.

4) Here's where I'll piss off a lot of people: Most GOP members of Congress, however good their instincts on spending, are blindly partisan sheep. They do what their President asks of them. Yes, there are exceptions (3 cheers for Ron Paul! One cheer for John McCain!...as long as we only talk about certain pork items 🙁 But most of them have a total hive mentality. They rally behind their President's agenda. Have they ever said no to a budget request?

More importantly, how many big spending bills during the Bush admin were passed by a unanimous Democratic caucus voting en bloc, with a handful of RINOs joining them? It's not like the Democrats set a spending agenda, then lure a couple of dissident Republicans to their side. The GOP leadership has been pretty good at keeping the Democrats from running the House in collaboration with a few RINOs.

I'm not 100% convinced that divided government will help, and I'm certain that it isn't a panacea. But it seems like a plausible thing to try.

[Andrew]

The spending is Bush's faultr-- that is simply the truth. If he did not initially propose, he subsequently championed most of the big-ticket items.

(It isn't all that new-- I am old enough to remember the awful cringe every Libertarian must have stifled as Reagan-- almost weekly-- signed a new COLA increase for Social Security...always on television, and often with "Tip" O'neill as co-host.)

We will be well rid of Bush...in 2008.

[Jason Ligon]

thoreau:

The divided government argument depends on one's risk tolerance and ability to figure out what will happen in the mid term elections.

Clinton was only Clinton because of Gingrich, otherwise he'd be Ted Kennedy. That might seem to be a case for divided government, but imagine a world with Clinton getting what he wanted in his first term. We would have no 2nd amendment to speak of, nationalized health care, high overall levels of taxation, and so on.

Repubs are sheep, no doubt. But, they buy votes out of what they perceive to be political necessity, as opposed to Dems who buy votes because robbing Peter to pay Paul is the entirety of their political position.

[thoreau]

Jason-

So, if the GOP is only spending big to get votes, is there a point where they'll have so much power that they can finally afford to cut spending? Is it just a matter of giving them enough power to do whatever they want?

I'm not demanding libertopia, but Bush can't even muster the will to limit spending growth to the combined rate of inflation and population growth. Yes, yes, I know, that would still be way too much spending, my point is that even that tiny and rational step is more than Bush can muster.

Oh, wait, NOW I see the reason for the guest worker program: Up population growth until it matches spending growth, and then declare that spending is finally under control 😉

[thoreau]

Jason's post raises one other interesting problem:

Which is more contemptible? A party that supports big government out of "principle", or a party that supports big government as a way to get more power? Jason suggests that the Dems really believe in big government while the GOP really believes in smaller government but support big government to get power. If they want smaller government but they use big government to get power, what exactly is it that they want the power for?

In the end, although there are some principled Republicans in office, I think far too many of them have no problems with spoils, spending, or social engineering as long as their supporters benefit.

[Warren]

All elected office holders are, lying, thieving, self-serving, power-lusting, minions of hell.

If they weren't, they couldn't have gotten elected in the first place, they would have lost to someone who, lied better, spent more, obsessed harder, and/or brown-nosed potenter potentates.

[matt]

Warren, your description of politicians was right on...except in the case of Rep. Ron Paul. In fact, he's running for re-election unopposed, and he hasn't had to sell his soul or fall in line with the republicans to do so. In this day and age it's pretty amazing when you think about it.

[thoreau]

How heavily gerrymandered is Ron Paul's district? Given the latest round of gerrymandering in TX, I can see why he's facing no opposition: If there aren't enough Democrats in the district the Dems will concentrate scarce resources elsewhere.

[Ben Goff]

Just follow the money. Bush gives the rich some tax breaks and the rich give Bush a little money relatively speaking. What are a few million if you are getting billions in tax cuts, government contracts and farm subsidies. The Republicans are only for small government when they are not in power. Things just got a little out of hand and a few started to think about who was going to pay for this?

[Grant Gould]

On the one hand, a real, principled revolution from the legislative back-benchers in the House could force Bush to kick his spending habit. On the other hand, these are politicians, so forget the "real, principled" bit: Bush and the Senate will pay them off with yet more debt-financed pork for their districts.
--G

[Jean Bart]

Republicans control all the mechanisms of the federal government correct?

[Joe Majsterski]

The funny thing is, forty representatives could have a significant amount of power if they all voted in a bloc. I mean, that's exactly the kind of swing vote that could consistently go against spending proposals from either party, that when combined with the non-proposing party could defeat a lot of spending. Of course, there are plenty of times when both sides have enough pork that they ALL vote for it, and no small principled bloc could stop them.

[ed]

"The Republican party has long been the party of small government."

Yes, in Bizarro World. Do Republicans themselves still believe this?

[Franklin Harris]

"Yes, in Bizarro World. Do Republicans themselves still believe this?"

Sure they do. And some so-called libertarians buy into it, too. They're the ones who come here to tell us how much worse the Democrats are, when, in fact, Carter and Clinton did less to grow the government than Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

[joe]

Yay, Grant's back!

Your hope founders on another rock: Republican backbenchers bucking the lesislative leadership and White House? Those obedient sheep are way to used to marching in lockstep for that to ever happen. They're not Democrats, after all.

[ed]

It's like the difference between Catholics and Episcopalians. Without the gay bishop thing, of course.

[matt]

thoreau,

Click on my name for a picture of it. It's actually not that "gerrymandered" if you will.

[joe]

I am a dickus

[Your Boss]

Drinking on the job again, Joe?

[joe]

You're right, that's insane, Republic Congressmen are models of independence, known for their aggressive bucking of authority. Whatever could I have been thinking?

[Jason Ligon]

Franklin,

Being one of those so-called libertarians, I am always left with a question. Democrats run on a platform of spending and income redistribution. It is the entirety of their platform. Repubs make noises about lowering taxes, privitizing government affairs and the like.

Repubs do not usually do those things, but one is left to ask, what happens when dems get what they want? Clinton tried, but was blocked by Gingrich and company. What really scares me is Al Gore signing what Tom Daschle is writing.

I hate the protectionism and domestic spending on stupid things of Bush, but I can't shake the feeling that it is the Dems who started the wholesale purchase of voting blocs and the repubs who feel forced to compete with spending of their own. That was Ron Paul's analysis when I asked him, as well.

[thoreau]

Dan-

You say we have lots of spending because voters want it and Bush wants to be re-elected. Fair enough. Just don't expect me to applaud him.

It is sometimes said by Democrats that "it will take decades to recover from the damage done by this administration." What if a bunch of really brave Republicans decided to forgo re-election for the public good and actually did the sort of "damage" that would take a long time to repair? Wouldn't that be nice?

But of course, they don't dare do something that would benefit the country in the long run but make themselves unpopular. They care only about re-election.

I therefore conclude that, contrary to all libertarian claims to the contrary, the GOP isn't really interested in small government. They're interested in their jobs in DC, and using those jobs to perpetuate those jobs.

Sounds a lot like the Democrat-leaning public employee unions....

Draw your own conclusions.

[Dan]

What if a bunch of really brave Republicans decided to forgo re-election for the public good and actually did the sort of "damage" that would take a long time to repair? Wouldn't that be nice?

Well, no, because it wouldn't last more than two years, tops, after which we'd have a solid Democratic government with a "Spend Spend Spend!" mandate from the people. Brave Last Stands just don't work in politics. Look at Gingrich's crowd: they shut down the government for just a *few days* and were roasted alive for it.

The only kind of "damage" Republicans can do is passive, anyway. They can't pass any legislation Democrats *really* hate, because they don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That means no Social Security reform, no drastic welfare cutbacks, no medicare cutbacks, no public education cutbacks -- none of it. They'd propose it; the Democrats would filibuster it; the press would eat the Republicans alive for suggesting it.

This is a democracy whose people are NOT libertarians at heart. The simple and plain truth is that the "small government" concept is fucked until after the Baby Boomers are six feet under. They're the biggest and most aggressively selfish generation in American history, and they're starting to approach that prime post-retirement "gimme gimme" stage. The best we can hope for, realistically, is that thirty or forty years from now most of the population is going to be REALLY fuckin' sick and tired of paying for all this crap. Then, maybe, we see some results.

In the meantime I'm not suggesting Bush should be applauded (outside the war on terrorism he's never done *anything* applause-worthy). I'm just saying he's pretty much as good as we're likely to get. His approach seems to be: take the bigass programs the public is demanding and Democrats are proposing, and score political points by proposing a (smaller than the Democrats') version of it himself.

[thoreau]

Thanks for the map. I retract what I said.

[Dan]

Hardly any Republican is standing up now making the point that all of the Bush tax cuts, and more besides, are fiscally irresponsible. If that whole package isn't fiscally irresponsible, who cares whether the Department of Labor's budget grows by 4 per cent instead of 5?

Because if you hold spending to a 4%/year increase, and the economy grows at more than 4% per year, eventually your budget deficit goes away. People forget that the budget surplus of the late 90s was brought about not by tax increases or budget cuts, but by substantial revenue increases, which in turn were caused by the booming economy.

On the other hand, if spending keeps booming by 10 to 15% a year... well, it's pretty damned unlikely we'll be able to catch up to THAT.

The spending is Bush's faultr-- that is simply the truth. If he did not initially propose, he subsequently championed most of the big-ticket items

The big-ticket items have generally had even bigger-ticket alternatives that were pushed by Democrats.

If we'd had a Democratic government, the prescription drug benefit would have been even MORE expensive; had government been divided, we'd have gotten some compromise bill partway between the two.

We're stuck with big-ticket items because American voters are stupidly demanding big-ticket items, not because of some Bush conspiracy. He's just trying to stay elected.

[Will Spencer]

I think we're all barking up the wrong tree here.

I do not believe this problem will be solved by changing a few percent here and there.

I believe this problem will require a clear delineation of the responsibilities of government -- enacted into law.

I believe we need to have a guideline, most likely in the form of a Constitutional amendment, that says to the Federal government "These are the things which you can and cannot spend money on."

[matt]

Will,

Not to crap all over your idea to much, but I thought that's what the constitution was supposed to do -- clearly define the role of the federal government. Well, we all know how well that's worked. A constitutional amendment explicitly stating what the politicians could and could not spend our money on would get nowhere...unless it was so vaguely worded that there would be no point in passing it at all.

[teen web cams]

webcam reviews dildo cam webcams chat room for lesbiens that uses web cams webcam now world map of webcams any web cam xxx webcam north carolina web cams free xxx webcams webcam chat amateur web cam webcam community amateur web cams webcam free virginia beach web cam webcam web cam drivers web cam pics xxx webcam free nude webcam beach web cams any web cam adult webcam chat livecam free live sex webcam programs nude web cam logitech webcam intel webcam drivers live sex list outer banks web cam webcam pictures web cam chat free north carolina webcams free nude web cams free web cam software free live adult webcam free personal webcams outer banks webcam webcam capture girls web cams live sex list outer banks web cam my web cam erotic web cams girl web cams sex webcam free web cams outer banks web cam hawaii web cam web cam software yahoo webcams webcams free webcam sex cam girls webcams outer banks webcam new york web cam free webcam hosting