A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days: Just Plain Discouraging

Sections

Help

Frequently Asked Questions

Just Plain Discouraging

Posted by Pejman Yousefzadeh on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 11:45:22 AM EST

You know, it is going to take a lot more than a mere "public relations offensive" to pacify people like me who are angry with the betrayal of Republican principles on fiscal policy. I don't care how many Tom DeLays go out and claim that there is no fat to cut in the federal budget. We all know better than to believe that and we know where the cuts can be found. Amtrak, the Medicare drug prescription bill, the highway bill--these are all examples of massive and nauseating overspending on the part of a Congress that is supposed to be dominated by Republican principles but appears more and more to be dominated by some Bizarro version of the New Deal.

Pretty soon, Republican voters are going to conclude that there is no point in supporting a party that has veered away from the policies of fiscal responsibility that made many of those voters Republicans in the first place. I believe there are enough Republicans in the House and Senate to do something about this growing perception of betrayal. Unfortunately, they do not appear to be in leadership positions.

Maybe a coup is in order. It certainly couldn't make matters worse and even if it fails, it might scare Republican leaders into acting responsibly. I never thought that a revolutionary like Newt Gingrich made a great leader when he finally acquired power. But at least he was good enough to put some positive changes into effect and not sell out the very people who supported him. I would kill for that kind of treatment right now.

< Encouraging . . . Somewhat | Dog Bites Man . . . >

Just Plain Discouraging | 4 comments (4 topical, 0 hidden)

Well, (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous Hero on Wed Sep 28, 2005 at 12:26:00 AM EST

This was obvious in about 2002, at which point you could have noted that the Democratic party was the one to support if you wanted fiscal responsibility. Apparently you continued to support the Republican party and hence the responsibility for the overspending lies with people like you, who reelected them.

: Well . . . (none / 0) (#2)
by Pejman Yousefzadeh on Wed Sep 28, 2005 at 12:40:24 AM EST

Merely demanding the raising of taxes does not fiscal responsibility make. Especially given the proclivity to spend that tax money. There would have been at least as much overspending if Democrats were in office as there would have been with the current Republican leadership in charge--except that the Democrats would have spent it on other projects and would have believed that such overspending is both good politics and good government.
So, no. I won't change my registration. Instead, I'll work to bring my party back to its principles. No jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire for me.
But thanks for the offer.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Hero on Wed Sep 28, 2005 at 05:52:38 PM EST

So you're implying that Republicans don't believe that such overspending is both good politics and good government. If so, what is motivating them? An invisible man pointing a gun at them?

Furthermore, the Republicans have never actually laid out an honest balance sheet showing precisely what they will cut, how much they will save, and how much in tax cutting that will translate to. Since the mid-90s they've always pretended to have a plan wherein money saved=money returned in tax cuts, but Gingrich's Contract actually had money saved=about 5 cents, money returned=about 5 dollars. Gingrich knew that the public wouldn't read the fine print though.

What is most fiscally irresponsible is spending money on interest, which doesn't happen when you don't have a deficit. The interest buys you nothing and it costs you economic growth.

None of the Democratic candidates in 2000 and 2004 as far as I know had a record of running deficits.

: Well . . . (none / 0) (#4)
by Pejman Yousefzadeh on Wed Sep 28, 2005 at 07:58:37 PM EST

No, I don't believe that Republicans think overspending is good government. But those who are in the leadership class seem to think that it is good politics because pork solidifies power. And many of those outside of the leadership class are quite displeased. The latter are the ideologues, after all.

I'd be interested in seeing a link supporting your claims about Gingrich's Contract. I remember that it was the Republicans who insisted on balancing the budget in seven years and forcing the Clinton Administration to accede to that. The only reason the Republicans lost the political argument during the 1995 budget shutdown was that they couldn't take yes for an answer.

In any event, I still see no reason to shift my support to a party that solely promises tax increases as a way of reducing the deficit--and then historically has taken those tax increases and just spent them. Government is not very good at saving money. Additionally, it is not as if I am upset that the deficit is a huge portion of GDP--it is not. My outrage at overspending is that it increases the size of government and the regulatory scope. The percentage of GDP it takes up doesn't enter into the equation--at least not yet. It would take a great deal more overspending before it does.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
[ Parent ]