Republicans should be prepared to use the budget process as a weapon in 2011, for the good of the nation and their own good.
The Republican National Committee is reportedly due to issue the latest version of what was once Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America this September 15th. Whether or not this document contains the necessary material may be extremely important to the GOP’s fortunes this November. After all, if it doesn’t, the support of Tea Party activists and 9-12′ers may evaporate in short order. Assuming that this document has the right touch, the next test lies in what comes after.
Much of the current polling data have indicated one consistent trend; that many voters are willing to call “a pox on both houses” and will be likely voting against the Democrats in November 2010, rather than for the Republicans, and with good reason. These voters have finally come to realize that the “2 party system” has become effectively a one party system where both sides argue over who will be in charge, but neither really stands in opposition to the general thrust of political practice which has been to grow government in size, power and spending, regardless of constitutional authority or the effect on the well-being of the nation. Robert Ringer, in “Restoring the American Dream,” called them Demopublicans back in 1979. Now, even though the Democrats like to pretend that the two parties are engaged in a bloody knife fight, we must face the fact that a lot of it is nothing more than show. The pejorative “RINO” quite easily sticks to people such as Mike Castle from Delaware, or the Maine twins, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. There are others as well.
The major thrust of voter discontent in 2010 is strongly tied to federal spending; something that virtually everyone has promised to do something to control, but no one actually has. Now, with things almost totally out of control and the nation spiraling into a condition which would force the average business into bankruptcy, the voters are finally taking notice of a fact that they should have addressed back during the Reagan years; government spending must be strictly limited and with it, government power.
Some critics have suggested that politicians have been buying votes with taxpayer money. They are probably hitting the target perfectly with that statement, as pork barrel projects, earmarks and the like have been a problem for years. Many representatives have prided themselves in saying that they brought home money for local jobs. There was a suggestion by University of Chicago economist Raghuram Rajan that politicians propose solutions that “keep their constituents happy without venturing into the rocky terrain of real reform.” They gain popularity by spending other people’s money, borrowed against future tax revenues, decades in advance, and then blame someone else when problems ensue. Problems are not solved. The people who are supposed to solve them pretend to do so, with full knowledge that they aren’t.
Controlling the budget and putting an end to the charade of “fiscal responsibility” that has been making the rounds for decades must be the centerpiece of whatever the Republican proposal contains. Along with repealing Obama-care and restoring US based energy production including drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the Santa Barbara Channel and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Not to mention removal of any of the obscene proposals that have been floated for a lame duck session in November and December 2010.) But the budget issue may be and should be the key.
Back in Newt Gingrich’s day the House of Representatives attempted a “shut down the government” strategy that was abandoned in the face of unfavorable publicity, much of it directed at Gingrich. The best bet that the GOP has this January is to hold the government budget hostage. Force a repeal of the ill-conceived legislation by refusing to authorize any spending other than for national security and the military unless the Senate goes along and the presidential veto pen is withheld from the repeals. And just to be sure, the budget should be approved only after the other legislation is signed, sealed and delivered. This strategy should be maintained, regardless of the press, or of opposing party criticism.
In any good basic political science class there is going to be a discussion of actual vs. virtual representation. America has had too much virtual representation for too long. The career politicians have come to take for granted that their positions were generally secure and that they could go along to get along on a wide variety of issues by claiming that they believed that they were doing the right thing.
Today the right thing is actual representation; the incoming class of Republican Party members must pull no punches for the good of the nation and their party. If the do anything less, their party will lose any support it now has and may doom the nation to one party rule in the future. This will spell the end of the Republican Party, and more importantly to American democracy and to popular sovereignty. This simple fact should be enough to motivate them to do the right thing for once. And while they are at it, they shouldn’t forget to eliminate that ban on the good old fashioned incandescent light bulbs.
Steven, your points are well taken, however I cannot believe we will see implementation in our single party political system. Only when we elect those that do not seek reelection will we move toward true responsibility in government. Term limits? How about 1 term and out for all elected positions? Convert the house term length to 3 years to make it more palitable.
Beyond that a balanced budget constitutional amendment which eliminates the ability to divert or “borrow” from so called trust funds like social security and apply the money to general funds.
Recognize offically that social security is a welfare system which not only does not pay back the contributions of high earners but also retaxes the previously taxed income when paid as benefits while providing an amazing return on investment for those that contributed the least.
Require true proportional taxation by repealing the 16th amendment which would force taxation to no longer be “progressive”…love that word that leads to the downfall of society.
This is truly a “do-or-die” year for the GOP. The electorate is primed to send real fiscal conservatives to Washington. It will not be good enough for these people to merely take the federal government’s foot off the accelerator; they must apply the brakes.
There is more than enough evidence in our government’s history that tax policy has little to do with deficits. The only thing that affects deficits is spending. You can arrange a progressive tax po0licy such as ours to guarantee $1 trillion dollars in revenue, but if you spend $2.5 trillion you’re still in trouble.
The current administration says that it cannot afford to ‘pay for’ a $700 billion tax cut for the richest 2% of the population, as if it’s their money to begin with! Line 43 of the 1040 form says ”Taxable Income” not “Granted” or “Bestowed” income. Personally; I favor a 20% across-the-board cut in all budgets, defense included. I like John Boehner’s idea of freezing the federal budget at the 2008 level, prior to TARP Stimulus, Bailouts or any other outlays; and working from there.
Make no mistake; this is the last chance for those in Washington. They either get it right this time or I’d be willing to bet there won’t be 50 states by 2012. Secession anyone?
Mickey,
While I don’t disagree with your points, I think you might want to rethink the issue on potential one party rule. Consider that the democrats are unlikely to fall apart, but if the republicans do they may well become a bunch of splinter groups unable to elect anyone because their vote is too divided. This is not guaranteed to happen, but I believe that it is a substantial likelihood if the GOP doesn’t slam the door on spending and roll back the statist legislation.
Actually; I believe democrats are more vulnerable to ‘splintering’ than republicans. It’s been my personal experience that democrats are more ‘single issue’ oriented than republicans. Republicans tend to rally around ideals such as limited government, individual liberty, rights to property while democrats are more likely to express interest in a particular issue such as gay marriage, Afghanistan, health care, or affirmative action. I’ve also run across democrats that; while focused intently on their ‘pet’ issue, could not possibly care less about other planks of the platform. This is what has led me to brand democrats as a loosely interconnected amalgamation of special victim’s groups. I’ve also observed in the past that all of these groups would show no compunction about throwing any and all other victims groups under the proverbial bus in order to achieve what they want.
This is a dangerous time for Republicans. More and more of them are running explicitly as Conservatives (finally!) etc., realizing that our nation is not a bunch of chanting socialists. BUT, if these Republicans end up betraying the Conservative ideals and become just more “get along to go along” RINOS, my gut tells me that the Democratic party will trounce the GOP in 2012.
Steven you misinterpret my one party rule, it refers to the lack of difference between politicians of both major parties. In effect there is only one party today and it’s platform is reelection and provision, to the unwashed masses, of the roman circus to buy that reelection!
deleeuw,
I believe you are correct but for reasons you may not suspect. Many I’ve talked to that are associated with the T.E.A. Party have said that if the republicans that get elected don’t really throttle back on the expansion of government that the only choice remaining will be to begin the process of forming a third party in 2011. Of course, such a thing will almost guarantee a ‘take back’ of institutional power by the liberals in 2012. But if the republicans don’t perform as expected; I imagine that is what will happen; the GOP will expire and a new cons3ervative party will grow in its place.
One other point to generally consider it should be a requirement that no unfunded federal mandates would be allowed in legislation e.g. if any other government entity is required to take an action due to federal legislation they should be paid the full cost of meeting the mandate.
Couple this with a balanced budget requirement without dipping into trust funds and other areas for general revenue and the imperial federal government would become the federal government we actually need.
My last favorite is to require repeal of a law every time a new law is created. This would begin to tame our out of control legislative frenzy as well as clean up outdated legislation.
Where will the Republicans go? Down the toilet I would put the probability that they actual do what they will promise at less than 10% and suggest that a third party will be necessary and that it will in short term eliminate the Republocrats.
While I’m fairly certain that republicans will win majorities in this mid-term; it will be a Pyrrhic victory. The democrats have left the republicans no choice but to make the hard decisions regarding cutting spending. If they don’t we’ll rid ourselves of them. If they do, the democrats will be in ‘high dungeon’ over the usual class warfare screeching; blaming republicans for not extending unemployment farther, not creating enough jobs (although they’ve created none themselves), and placing even more undue burdens on the people by trimming the safety net.
I really believe that the democrats will not pass a budget on purpose forcing the republicans to bring a pared down budget to the floor that they may all vocally disagree with. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have a government shut down a’ la Bill Clinton. We’ll just have to see if the republicans will have the courage of their convictions. I do like John Boehner’s idea of freezing spending at 2008 levels across the board. I’d personally encourage deeper cuts; more like 25% across the board (defense included) plus the elimination of the Department of Education.
This is no time to ‘trim’ spending; the budget requires an ax, not a scalpel. Republicans need to remember that they will be judged in 2012 by how well they attuned themselves to the people, not to liberals or the media. When I was a Director in a manufacturing company I judged how well I was doing my job by how many times my name appeared on wall in the employee’s men’s room. Republicans should judge themselves by how apoplectic Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews get each evening. If all the republican house members were to watch those shows on MSNBC each evening it would probably double the viewership.
This author hit the nail on the head when he wrote: “government spending must be strictly limited and with it, government power”. And what are the chances of that actually happening? Yes, about the same as that lottery ticket tucked in your wallet displaying every winning number and showering you with $168 million before taxes. Then why even bring it up? Because Americans intuitively know it’s the right thing to do but also the hardest thing our citizens will ever do.
“Uncle Sammy, put your foot on my neck, now press down real hard but give me, an American citizen, security from financial want, guard my health, protect me from all enemies, make it possible for me to thoroughly enjoy the good life” – that’s what the majority of Americans claim every “democratic” government should attempt to do. Citizens currently whining about Obama voted for him 2 years ago in the belief a “benevolent” president wouldn’t bring overly intrusive government and its legacy of historically consistent failure. His very benevolence alone was somehow a guarantee against past failures. Obama cared when Bush had seemed uncaring and, in the light of his obvious “goodness” and “purity”, there was every reason to believe he could make intrusive government work and work well.
Foolish notion, right? But a notion the majority of Americans always embrace when it comes to our form of government. Intrusive government can somehow be made to work if only our leaders are men and women of charitable disposition and who genuinely seem to care for each and every one of us. Tell me how much security you’ll provide me and I’ll vote for you if you’ll simply promise me more of what I want than the other guy is offering. In class room theory, too much government is always and forever a bad thing for our nation, but it can be a good thing for you personally when it delivers an unemployment check for an additional 26 weeks or bails you out when the bank wants to foreclose on your home.
So, Republicans should tell voters the personal security they secretly desire and desperately crave is actually rooted in sound fiscal management, or income tax cuts, or balanced federal budgets – and they should do it with a smile, like a loving parent gently admonishing her child. And it may seem logically absurd Americans would spin on their collective heels and put their faith in a promise of less government when a promise of more government has clearly failed. But, unlike logic, emotionally it’s a very understandable response – “you Donkey guys clearly failed me so let the Elephant guys try for a while, but give me the security I want and need”. The bottom line for us Americans, from Maine to California, is at the present moment and for the foreseeable future the simple concept of “give me more personal security or I’ll surely vote for the other guy”.
The GOP is already in big trouble, even if they take the house and more of the senate.
Current leadership has no strong public voice let alone a plan.
The old (now new) ideas of small goverment are not being fleshed out into a policy that can be expressed.
My fear is more K street crap and get along to get along.
The essence of the Tea Party movement is probably more traditional liberal than current GOP.
I see a train wreck coming unless some of the new young ideas(not just age)of conservatives get to lead us out of the Big labor,business etc.. politics we live in today.
jprairie, you have apparently confused the Democrat ititiatives with those of Republicans in your comments. A more careful review would indicate that virtually every “new” initiative by the Democrats has been previously tried and has failed. Maybe you believe in Kensyian theories of economics which were clearly discredited once people began to develop econometric models that tracked the effect of money creation and other forces in the overall economy. FDR policies, while worshipped by progressives, made the depression much worse only to be saved by a war.
In one of my gradute economics courses I wrote a paper on the effect of the new deal and its destruction of the economy (written in the early 1970s and serving as the basis on one of my two masters thesi titled a model to predict the failure of small businesses. The prof of course had a fit indicating that the new deal saved the world. He swallowed his words later when the thesis committee accepted the topic and looked the fool at the oral defense.
So, what have the democrats done that was new except spend money we do not have…oh well there are the printing presses.
Mickey, we were taught that at Brandeis in the late 70s.
My Prof. was very familar with the failure of Command economies and saw Kensyian theory as destuctive to free markets.
My point is that politically the Republicans must lead and act on making goverment smaller.
Both parties have used tax revenues as a cookie jar to share with special interests.
Jprairie: Have to agree the Republicans lack leadership, but their real strength lies in other areas; primarily in the area of “well, at least we’re not Democrats”. No one expects Republicans to actually do anything if they win a majority in the House or even within the Senate – their job is to immediately establish legislative gridlock and block all of Obama’s jump shots in a game of one on one over the next 2 years.
Talking about concrete plans to change past D. C. excesses is wishful thinking and such plans have about the same chance of succeeding as Tiger Woods giving away all his money, turning celibate and entering a monastery. The Republicans aren’t going to shrink government, they didn’t when they ruled us in the past, they won’t if they rule us again in the future. As in European nations, approx. 22% of our workforce is occupied in government or government related jobs. Four fifths of our population, in theory, must carry these government workers on our backs – but, in actual practice, only half of all voters pay Federal income tax which reduces the host pool supporting the parasites even further, then if you add in those government workers paying taxes which sounds suspiciously like taking money out of the right pocket and putting it in the left pocket, where does that leave us? Well, it creates a large and very pumped up lobby fighting to retain a huge government work force – a work force which is busily manufacturing more “government” each and every day for the benefit of us hardworking Americans. And it also leaves a much reduced pool of taxpayers to provide real wealth to support those Americans holding down government jobs.
Like Europe, America has lost its once mighty position within the manufacture of capital goods for export and the production of high quality consumer products. We are now world leaders in the production of “government” and “Made in America” still commands genuine respect when you’re referring to quality government products like finely woven, handcrafted regulations, highly durable regulatory agencies, dynamic federal Departments in Control of Various Things, state of the art, highly automated new legislation assembly, widespread command and control policing networks and 6 sigma judicial rulings; while not forgetting our world class lobbyists and current elected politicians.
So, why are Americans nervous with our beloved Democrats? Well, first off, manufacturing real products a person can see and touch is easy to understand, but in this new world of complex intangibles, of invisible global trends, of massive government regulation, of financial manipulation on a worldwide scale, it’s easy to become confused, to be frequently overwhelmed by uncertainty and pessimism. Do our Democrats really understand all this complexity? They say they do, but we’re beginning to wonder. Why are their bailouts, stimulus packages and other initiatives failing to produce predicted results? Why isn’t the economy recovering like it always has in the past – is something going on we don’t understand, will it be ugly, will it get worse?
In times like these, when uncertainty and confusion seem to overwhelm us, there is really only one thing to do. And that one thing is turn to Republicans with the certainty they will oppose the Democrats. No one expects the Republicans to reform anything, their job is to hold Obama’s queen in check until us ordinary citizens can figure out what’s really going on or the economy starts to heal, whichever comes first. We want Obama to read his pretty speeches off the teleprompter but stop thinking up new and generally unworkable initiatives. Play more basketball, play less “captain of industry” who knows which sick firms and deserving unions require saving.
Yeah, it may not seem like we’re asking the Republicans to do much – which is probably a good thing considering their past competency – but keeping the Democrats from doing even more damage is no small accomplishment. If the Republicans can hold the Democrats completely in check we’ll be frankly amazed, but if they can slow down the legislative avalanche even a little bit that may turn out to be a major blessing for this country.
Pat S.
Our new gov. Chris Christy in New Jersey has made progress talking bluntly and clearly on how goverment can crowd out business growth.
Obamma got elected on a vision of nonpartisonship.
People want to be led and have something they can believe in.
I see an opening for someone that can condense and articulate the Tea Party message.