Bush Fiscal Conservatism Watch

Federal arts funding creeps up under Bush's watch.

Comments

[K Rove]

Bush: Yeah, thats right, I am gunning for the artsy types vote! Once I get the votes, I slash the budget next year to keep the base happy.

[R. C. Dean]

The tooth-grinding idiocy of Karl Rove's re-election strategy never ceases to amaze. Do they really believe that their gargantuan domestic spending increases, aimed mostly at Dem-friendly groups, are going to move any votes?

Is there a single, solitary artist anywhere in the nation who will vote for Bush because he increased arts spending?

Bush will probably get re-elected in spite of, not because of, his fiscal profligacy. Unfortunately, the Repubs will then believe that spending money like a drunken Democrat is the way to win elections, and what little fiscal restraint remains in our politics will wash away.

[Fred]

Cardman: "Most schizophrenic President ever!"

[Madog]

Perhaps the real plan is to betray Bush by giving him all this bad advice about spending. Then when he loses, Republicans will think that it was the spending that did it.

Of course, the real reason he'll lose (if he does) is because so many people dislike him on a personal, irrational level.

[Shirley Knott]

Or then again there are those of us who loathe him on a personal and rational basis.
If George Bush moved into my neighborhood, I'd do a damn site more than just change the locks!

"Oh, but he's such a good person"...

Shirley Knott

[Andrew]

This appears to be a way to give Laura Bush an opportunity to participate in the campaign at lots of up-market Arts events. Most state and local governments have been pinched in their library/theater/museum budgets (and I never had that big of a problem with this part of the fairly tiny NEA budget). This hardly qualifies for the "spending like a drunken sailor" dirge...which is becoming kind of a knee-jerk-- SOME budget items would have shown an annual up-tick if Harry Browne was president.

[Swamp Justice]

Cheney has already been quoted as saying, "Reagon proved that deficits don't matter." I guess he means deficits don't matter to a politician's public image.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

So its not spending like a drunken sailor so much as it is spending public money to get re-elected. That clears everything up. 🙂

[Jason Ligon]

Taking a poll.

Is Bush really going to spend all this cash, or is he just worried about getting into a second term when he can do what he wants?

[Pete Guither]

This isn't going to get the artists vote, that's for sure. It'll provide a few extra dollars for some of the larger symphonies and theatres, but most artists have written off the NEA as irrelevant since the cuts in the early 90's. The $176 million budget then ('92) was barely enough to have positive national impact on the arts, and only because actually getting an NEA grant was impressive enough to draw matching donations from individuals and corporate grants.

Bringing it up to $140 mil will be a very minor impact -- perhaps enough to upset fiscal conservatives, but not enough to make the artists pay attention (except perhaps some large contributor Symphony/Opera Board Member types).

[Jean Bart]

WASHINGTON - President Bush?s new budget will project that the just-enacted prescription drug program and Medicare overhaul will cost a third more than previously estimated and will predict a record deficit exceeding $500 billion for this year, congressional aides said Thursday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4098618/

[Warren]

I think it's more likely a pork-pro-Q (as in Bar Bee); a (saucy rib) bone thrown across the aisle to prevent any loud squealing, over the drunken sailoresk spending, from fat piggies with nothing in their end of the trough.

[Jean Bart]

Meanwhile, in France....

PARIS, Jan 29 (AFP) - The French senate early Thursday passed a bill to liberalise the country's state-monopoly postal services.

The legislation will allow rivals to establish alternative postal services, initially for letters and later for heavier items.

[thoreau]

A few things:

First, my understanding is that NEA is about 1% of all art spending in the US, the rest is either from private donors or customers (e.g. museum entrance fees). Although I freely admit to not knowing what fraction comes from state and local governments, I doubt it amounts to a substantial portion.

Second, I don't think Bush spends like a drunken sailor to win over liberal voters. I think he does it to win over moderates. Soften his image so that moderates figure he's more, well, moderate. He does some allegedly conservative things, and some allegedly liberal things, and then Rove just has to hope that moderate swing voters will reward him for it.

As to the theory (presumably facetious) that this is a ploy to make Bush lose and then blame the loss on big spending so Republicans don't make that mistake again: It starts to sound like the plot of some really bad movie. "Hah hah hah! My evil plan has worked! We have tricked them into making a mistake so they'll never make it again, and we did it through an incredibly complicated scheme that could have easily unraveled or backfired at any point! HAH HAH HAH!"

Then again, is "starve the beast" theory any more ludicrous? The idea that if we just spend enough then we'll have to stop? It's like predicting that if we just get somebody drunk enough he'll see what a mistake drinking was and quit. Or that if we just make the government even more intrusive it will create a backlash.

Finally, somebody asked if Bush might do what he REALLY wants in his second term: I doubt it. I think the GOP political machine will be too busy trying to build up some annointed governor or Senator or cabinet member to act as the successor. And that build-up will require (drum roll please...) MORE SPENDING!

But, if the second term is really the key to truly courageous leadership and re-election is in fact the temptation that leads Presidents astray, then the logical course of action would be to push for an amendment to make Presidents ineligible for re-election.

Note to Andrew: I'm not convinced of that theory. I'm not pushing for such an amendment. Please don't accuse me of trying to engineer outcomes. But since somebody raised the possibility that a second term will mean more courageous leadership, I just wanted to point out the logical consequences such a notion would have. Whether that consequence makes the idea more palatable or less palatable is a matter for debate.

[thoreau]

A thought on the parties and spending:

I wonder if, over a few decades, a realignment could take place. Remember how the Democrats used to be the party of the South, and the GOP had New England in a lock? Well, over the course of the 20th century it reversed. It didn't happen overnight, and the historically literate can undoubtedly debate over which events most contributed to it. But the one undeniable thing is that it happened.

For now the GOP remains the party that at least sometimes "talks the talk" about less spending. The Democrats usually complain about spending only to say "And the only way to fix it is to tax more." So, at least for now, they aren't really the party of fiscal discipline.

But, and just hear me out here, what if over time that changes? Suppose that a successful GOP machine continues to solidify its grip on electoral success, and so the more savvy political aspirants realize that the key to political success is to join the GOP. Sort of like how just about all political aspirants in the South joined the Democratic party once upon a time. Whatever that person's views might be, the only way to win was as a Democrat.

As the pork machine builds, and as the old generation of Democrats fade away, eventually some younger Democrats of a maverick stripe might make a bold stroke and actually become the more fiscally conservative of the two parties. (Yes, yes, I know, they wouldn't be good enough for purist libertarians. No doubt about it. But the old-school GOP, i.e. pre-W, isn't good enough for purists either. Nonetheless, that old school is clearly better than the Dems.)

You can scoff at me. But what if in 1964 somebody told you that within 16 years a California Republican from Hollywood would win a massive victory against a Southerner, and that he'd do it with the help of electoral votes from the South? Remember, those were the days of the "Solid South".

I'm not suggesting that we all become Democrats, or that we hold our breaths waiting for this to happen. I'm just pondering the possibility of this bizarre event happneing. That's all.

Any thoughts from the peanut gallery?

[Fred]

Jason,

This money will be spent as fast as those billions promised to help with the African AIDS problem. There will be so many strings attached that not a red cent is going anywhere.

In the case of Africa, each country will be required to pass an anti-abortion law before they get anything. In the case of the arts, well they'll find some condition that the intended recipients find so vile that, again, no money goes anywhere.

Oh! But what am I saying. Since all this loot will be in the budget, unspent, it can get re-appropriated to a proper cause after the election. But ever so quietly.

[Jean Bart]

In recent history, "second terms" for U.S. Presidents have not been successes; indeed, Eisenhower had the best of the lot since WWII, and his second term ended rather poorly.

Clinton - Monica

Reagan - Iran-Contra; Donald Regan

Nixon - Watergate

LBJ (if we consider his first elected term a second term) - Viet Nam nightmare

Eisenhower - U2 spy flight shootdown; civil rights heats up; etc.

[Andrew]

Only three Republican presidents have obtained a second term since the end of WW II-- Ike, Nixon and Reagan...and Nixon's was cut short.

Interestingly. ALL of them WERE much more combative and conservative on budgetary issues during there second terms...even Nixon-- and his successor Ford, moreso (note to Rick Barton-- a Ford record on vetoes).

All of them were pretty unsuccessful-- but they all faced a congress in opposition ("divided government"). Bush, should he get re-elected, would probably be the first Rep. president to get to "show his stuff"...I'm DYING to see it! (By comparison, what would be fun about having Kerry for prez?)

Republicans are conservatives by default-- and conservatives are the proxy for libertarians in the political mainstream.

(A six-year single term probably only increases the incentives for a president to "annoint" a successor with pork-grease.)

[Jean Bart]

You certainly have a rich fantasy life.

[Andrew]

Two political myths that I was raised on: incumbent presidents always get re-elected; second terms are always awful.

Lets look at the record since WW II.

1 incumbent died in office-- Kennedy

1 incumbent was defeated the first time he faced the voters-- Ford

2 incumbents declined to face the voters a second time-- Truman, LBJ

2 incumbents were defeated the second time they faced the voters-- Carter, Bush I

4 incumbents were re-elected-- Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton

Out of 9 presidents constitutionally eligible, 5 were either turned out by the voters, or declined to run because they expected to be.

How "bad" are second terms?

Second terms tend to be hard on the PERSONAL standing of presidents-- but it is important to note that Ike, Reagan and Clinton could all have obtained a third term if polls are to be believed...and one can imagine the same for Nixon, absent Watergate.

But 1956-60, 1972-76, 1984-88 and 1996-2000 were not bad periods in US or global history. The economy progressed, the world stayed out of trouble, and we don't associate these stretches with the kind of policy mistakes we repent for a generation.

For libertarians who long for the amber twilight of Clinton's second term, the best chance to get something like it is to re-elect Bush...not some Democrat parvenu who feels a need to DO something.

[Overlord]

"A government supported artist is an incompetent whore." - Robert Heinlein

[thoreau]

"A government supported artist is an incompetent whore."

What would he be without the gov't support? A competent whore, or an incompetent without the whore part? 😉

[Randy]

"Is Bush really going to spend all this cash, or is he just worried about getting into a second term when he can do what he wants?"

Four words: No Child Left Behind.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

1956-1960 - Cuba goes communist; America has serious diplomatic reversals vis a vis the Soviets; America is forced to confront its Civil Rights wrongs, and Ike is forced to do it by your Supreme Court; etc.

1972-1976 - Yes this was not a general period of world-wide crisis! Hmm, let us see, what happened in that period, hmmm, could it have been an oil embargo? Another ugly war in the middle-east? Economic disaster in Latin America as national economies there overheat? Stagflation in the U.S.?

All was not the roses that your fantasy-land historical analysis tries to trumpet.

[Jean Bart]

Overlord,

Heinlein must have despised Italian Renaissance painters; nearly all of them received money from the public purse.

[Jean Bart]

WASHINGTON President George W. Bush plans to scale back requests for money to fight AIDS and poverty in the third world, putting off for several years the fulfillment of his pledges to eventually spend more than $20 billion on these programs.

http://www.iht.com/articles/127163.html

[Andrew]

Jean

Pick another twenty years you would contend to be better, using the SAME criteria-- ANY combination of another twenty years (much less twenty you could correlate sytematically with some other phase of the American presidential cycle).

Presidential first terms show more variance-- really good economies, or really bad ones; big foreign policy successes or big foreign policy failures; inspired ideas or terrible ones. Presidential second terms are steady-as-she-goes, and on average, better-- because most presidents, if they REALLY fail, fail in their first terms...and then they don't get re-elected.

Yes-- the economy is cyclical, the world is always a rocky place, and we will make policy mistakes as long as we make policy...but hell, if you make some allowance for Nixon's second term (which he was unable to serve), second terms start to look like the Golden Age!

[thoreau]

Nixon actually made the 3 best decisions of any US President since WWII, and 2 of those 3 were made in his second term. The 3 decisions were:

1) China
2) Gerald Ford
3) Resignation

Notice that 2 and 3 were in his second term.

I know, I know, some people here will insist that Bush's decision to invade a country that posed no threat to the US is the most brilliant decision of any leader in all of history. Well, just keep smoking that weed, man! 🙂

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

"Presidential first terms show more variance-- really good economies, or really bad ones; big foreign policy successes or big foreign policy failures; inspired ideas or terrible ones. Presidential second terms are steady-as-she-goes, and on average, better-- because most presidents, if they REALLY fail, fail in their first terms...and then they don't get re-elected."

Well, these are the things that you keep claiming; you have yet to demonstrate the veracity of your claims (somehow you think that if you keep claiming something that everyone will eventually believe you). Indeed, one of your data points, Nixon's second term, is so wildly off the mark as to be laughable. He resigned from office, and he was replaced by a man who couldn't even beat that fuck-up Carter! You must enjoy the punishment I mete out to you it seems. 🙂

[Andrew]

JB

Pick the four presidential terms you prefer.

[Andrew]

JB

I understand (as does anyone who has followed your posts) that logic is not your strong suit, but it is important when making comparisons to employ the same criteria.
So give this a try-- in comparing any other set of four-year presidential terms, with the second terms of American presidents who at least began a second term, in respect to any criteria you would employ to adjudge the second terms as being faulty, show me how your picks wouldn't be worse.

If that is a bit over your head, I can try again 😉

[Jack]

Thoreau wrote: "Then again, is "starve the beast" theory any more ludicrous? The idea that if we just spend enough then we'll have to stop? It's like predicting that if we just get somebody drunk enough he'll see what a mistake drinking was and quit."

Actually the more accurate analogy would be predicting that if we get someone drunk enough that he dies from alcohol poisoning he'll quit drinking. I think that prediction would be correct.

[thoreau]

So, how do we get the gov't to "die" from over-spending? The only thing that can really happen is that the the interest on the debt forces the elimination of all other programs. A few problems:

1) The debt will have to be REALLY big before that happens.
2) Before they cancel all other programs they'll raise taxes. By the time things get so desperate that massive spending cuts are the only remaining tool to cover interest payments, the tax burden will be huge. We'll still be paying taxes. The only way we come out ahead on this is if we buy treasury bonds, so that our taxes are paid to ourselves.
3) As soon as they make some headway on the debt they'll just start spending again.

I'm forced to conclude that "starve the beast" is a bad idea. Or, it's a bad idea in its most simplistic form, which is tax cuts accompanied by massive spending. If it's tax cuts accompanied by spending cuts (i.e. real fiscal discipline) then I'd be fine with it. But that's not what I hear from conservatives.

[Rick Barton]

From the AP story:
President Bush will ask Congress for an $18 million budget increase for the National Endowment for the Arts. Bush's proposed spending increase would be the largest in years.

There should be no government funding for the arts. By it's very nature art is subjective. It's also an elective pursuit if there ever was one.

But this! What an insult to fiscal conservatives! This comes right after the NPAC convention where conservatives, yet again, made it so clear how unhappy they are with the hyperbolic growth of government under Bush. The reply? Bush just told us to F-off!

We should contact our Republican congress people and senators:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

and tell them that we will vote for them, assuming that they do not have terrible (D or F) NTU ratings. (As bad as many of the Republicans have been in approving the Bush agenda, the Democrats have voted to spend even more of our money): NTU.org But, for our votes, we expect the Republicans to reduce spending. After the huge increases we've been subjected too, surely we can enact some real cuts. The same message should be communicated to all Republican candidates not just incumbents.

However, we should tell them that we will never vote for Bush and we should tell them why. We take offence at spending like drunken Democrats. First, a preemptive attack that runs counter to long standing conservative principle; for which, the most charitable excuse that can now be made is; "faulty intelligence".
And now, the fiscal profligacy of the Bush administration seems to know no cessation, despite vocal protests from the right.

When we give money to the Republicans we should ask them how we can do so and make sure none of it goes toward Bush's reelection. I have two reasonably limited government type Republicans in congress to vote for (actually, one who is very good and the other who is decent). I'll put the bumper sticker of, at least, the very good guy on my cars along with the Libertarian candidate for president. (Disclosure: I have voted for the LP candidate for president in every election since Reagan)

[Rick Barton]

Make that"..right after the NCPAC convention..." I'm so mad I can't type straight.

[kevrob]

"Starve the beast" does not require massive spending increases. Tax cuts, or even reductions in scheduled tax increases, such as the elimination of inflation-caused "bracket-creep," are all that is necessary for it to work. Faced with restricted revenue, the legislature can only reduce expenditures from the much higher targets they hoped to maintain, or make some attempt at rolling back whatever tax relief was adopted to cause the budget pinch. If they can't agree on taxes and spending, they can "compromise" by running up the deficit. Supporters of the "more revenue" position are supposed to take a beating at the ballot box.

When Republicans spend on "culture," I always suspect that the mostly male solons are trying to get their wives off their backs. Many a connected pol has a spouse who enjoys playing patron to the museums, orchestras and "public" TV stations in their constituency or in the District. Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) is married to the head of WETA. Mrs. Bush, the schoolteacher/librarian has a favorite boondoggle, the Texas Book Festival. Once W was in the White House, there was hatched a National Book Festival.

http://www.loc.gov/bookfest/welcome/index.html

It gets NEA and private funding. It is probably a fine idea, except for the tax dollars involved. I suspect this sort of stuff makes the RINO's feel better as they lunch at the country club.

Kevin

[Andrew]

Thoreau

Bush wouldn't (probably) have gotten the tax cuts and the war-- so how you assess it depends on how you rate the cuts and the war.

The spending programs aren't likely to charm the electorate, or even capture their attention. The only people who would care aren't going to vote for Bush, or especially for any Rep congressional candidates. I do say, for reasons given above, that Bush is likely to be less profligate in his second term-- the election itself will be regarded as a referendum on the war and the tax cuts, and neither will be challenged after Bush is returned to office, if he is.

Although I think Bush is the favorite now, I can imagine him losing.

The experts (I am not one) say the GOP will make some very small gains with or without Bush...so you might get a chance to see how your theory works out-- I am sceptical, but it COULD be.

[Rick Barton]

Jean Bart:

"Heinlein must have despised Italian Renaissance painters; nearly all of them received money from the public purse."

I thought that the Medici family, were among the main patrons of Italian Renaissance painters.

http://www.worldhistory.com/newsletter-vol2-renaissance.htm

Of course the Medici might have been quite wrapped up in the "public purse", themselves. I know least one of them, I think, the founder, was in the tax collecting "business" and two or three of them became Popes.

Artists worked, above all, for the church or were given commissions by private patrons.
From:
http://www.liceomarconi.it/Progetti/PEE-1999_2000/shades.html

I know it might be argued that the church was the state for at least part of the Renaissance.

[Andrew]

Thoreau

Although there is nothing wrong with lowering taxes (ever) it IS true that the only way to lower spending is to lower spending-- something that Republicans only reluctantly do, and Democrats not at all (aside from the immediate post-Cold War bonanza-- an unrepeatable one-time event).

Probably only modest cuts in the size of the government could be realised in this generation...if that. As Dan said on another post, until the baby-boomers are dead they aren't going to cut anything.

What cuts are achieved will come through Republicans-- and that won't be much.

[Ron Hardin]

Couldn't we get art cheaper overseas? There's no reason to fund American artists if India can do it for a tenth the price.

[thoreau]

Andrew-

In the near future I agree that the GOP is the only party likely to downsize gov't. But I wonder if in the future another realignment of constitutencies might occur. Not any time soon, but in the course of 20 years or so.

No, no, this is not one of those "Libertarians for Dean!" statements. But, as I said above, the 2 parties have changed a great deal over the history of the republic, swapping constituencies and changing positions until the only thing they have in common with their counterparts of 100 years ago is the names Democrat and Republican.

I wonder if the GOP might find itself addicted to pork. Suppose that the GOP fails to follow through on its Social Security reform proposals, and becomes wedded to the status quo. Suppose that the older Democratic leaders retire in the next 20 years. And suppose that 20 years from now young workers are being squeezed with record tax burdens to pay for the Baby Boomer retirement. I wonder if, under those circumstances, the politicians lambasting Big Government might call themselves Democrats, and the politicians defending the status quo might call themselves Republicans.

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that we all start voting Democrat, or that Dean or Kerry will downsize gov't. What I'm pondering is the possibility that the GOP, being an institution devoted to maintaining power first and foremost, will let success breed complacency. And the Democrats, being an institution that values power first and foremost, might find themselves losing some of their current base to a GOP that now controls the pork. As a result, the institution calling itself "the Democratic Party" might seek out constituents who used to be Republicans.

Once again, I emphasize that I am NOT endorsing any Democrats, although I know people here will accuse me of it anyway (learn to read, people!). I'm just pondering the possibility that the GOP's loss of principle will cause an eventual realignment akin to the north-south swap of the 2 parties.

Oh, and I agree that the only way to cut spending is to cut spending, and that tax cuts are always good. My point is that some say "Oh, don't worry, the tax cuts will force spending cuts." I have to disagree. The gov't just borrows money when they don't have enough tax revenue. Tax cuts and spending cuts are (sadly) completely separate although equally impmortant.

Somehow I suspect that somebody here will accuse me of not wanting tax cuts. All I said is that tax cuts and spending cuts are different but equal issues. It would be like saying that tax cuts and the death penalty are separate issues, which is obviously true.

[Andrew]

Tax cuts will not force spending cuts. Tax cuts might "force" growth...say a prayer!

I will repeat something I posted in another thread:

"Oh Hell! Bush's spending programs were never intended to purchase the electorate, or any part of it-- do you know anyone out there who intends to vote Bush because of any of these items?-- they were intended to keep a good chunk of the congressional Democratic caucus on board with his tax cuts, and the war in Iraq

(War requires, in effect, a congressional super-majority-- a fair-sized minority could have played hell with the 80- billion package)."

War is expensive, and it is unlikely that ANY society EVER, and certainly no modern industrial state, has "profited" AS A WHOLE from conducting a war.

Certainly security is valuable-- and THIS we may have obtained at a dear price (I will argue it was worth it)...but all the oil we are ever going to get won't pay the freight, especially with this domestic spending trade-off.

[thoreau]

Andrew-

A few days back, in a post on farm subsidies, I suggested that farm subsidies are a matter of national security because they are necessary in order to get Bush re-elected. I facetiously suggested that with those farm subsidies "the terrorists will win."

Is that your serious stance on all this domestic pork? Without it, the terrorists will win?

[dj of raleigh]

> we will never vote for Bush and we should tell them why. >

The measure of an effective voter is that the outcome of their vote best serves their rational need.
The measure of a failed voter is that their vote makes them FEEL good, as opposed to BEING good for their interests.

[dj of raleigh]

> Only three Republican presidents have obtained a second term since the end of WW II-- Ike, Nixon and Reagan...and Nixon's was cut short.

[dj of raleigh]

>Lets look at the record...

[Jon Arnett]

Fiscal Responsibility Amendment

Tax Authorization Amendment

The National Union Party
http://www.unionparty.rantweb.com