Redstate

The SCOTUS has ruled it unconstitutional, has it not?

If you're suggesting a drive for a Constutional Amendment, I'm there.

...I'm not touching this one with a ten-foot pole. But I'm going to be silently nodding with a lot of people.

You are absolutely right.  I don't want my favorite programs cut -- of course mine are weapons systems -- and the Kossacks don't want theirs cut -- of course theirs do nothing for no one really other than provide excuses for government employees to keep getting paychecks.

The rare person who does want something cut, e.g. Coburn, usually gets sent packing back to his home state.  That's the nature of the beast.

But, while we're in charge, let's fund our pet programs and not theirs.

...I get pissed off when anyone cuts intel funding.

Ok.

The political equivalent of magical realism is always in play when the subject of the budget arises.  What this means is that we will continue doing the same, mad thing over and over again, ad infinitum, in the delusory belief that sometime, a miracle will occur, in which the budget somehow gets balanced.  The miraculous is always behind the mundane!  This is also a form of insanity.

It's late enough for me to show my cynicism, but at least the Democrats have a rationale for all of this: spend more, because this will eventually necessitate the grail of Democratic politics - more taxes!  Why Republicans think they can have their cake and eat it, too, is beyond me.

Look I defend you guys emphasizing social issues on the site.  And I understand there is a tension between social issues and fiscal ones inside the party.  But what is the (%#$%@#$#@$ idea with $#@((%ing on fiscal conservatives.

Just because political realities and ideological stances don't match up doesn't necessitate a condescending front page story.  If younger Bush appoints a Souter, can I take a dump on the religious right?

If RedState wants to be the home of the social conservatives, that's fine but make it known.  I'm a budget hawk, moderate libertarian, Republican who wants to keep the party of small government in power.  Should I be here or not?  Let me know.

that Thomas is trying to prove that fiscal conservatism is passe, worthless, etc.  I think that it is a matter of deficit hawks talking a good game but never backing it up with action.  If they profess to care about the budget, but refuse to butcher anyone's sacred cow, well, we theocrats have language for that sort of thing: faith without works is dead.  In other words, if your actions don't back up your mouth, you're lying.

If it were anyone other than Thomas, I'd assume it was harmless.

Should we assume social conservatives are disinginuous because abortion has not been outlawed?  I don't think so.  Maybe we should work on creating a new budget process that encourages making hard decisions.  May I recommend a TABOR similar to Colorado.  If you cap spending, then politicians must choose between spending programs.  The government should not spend more than 20% of GDP, period.

I'm a big supporter of being as fiscally conservative as possible.  I think that balanced budgets are a major priority and admire state governors that, even during the last recession, were able to keep the books balanced w/o raising taxes.  And that's one of the things that has me so upset with the congressional leadership.  I don't blame Bush.  My guess is that if he had the line-item veto, he'd use it.  But as it is, unless the GOP Congress gets serious about spending, we're looking at a 10-trillion dollar nat'l debt.

So maybe we should start by amending the Constitution to give the president a line-item veto.  That way, he could line out the pork-barrel projects and wasteful spending that seem to be characteristic of congressional budgets regardless of who is in power.  Also, entitlement reform can definitely help get us to a more fiscally sound government.  Partial privatization of Social Security and revisiting the Medicare bill (which is going to end up costing us a lot more than anticipated) would be an excellent start.  And tax reform could work wonders.  Rumor has it that Ways and Means Chair Bill Thomas wants to eliminate the corporate income tax and replace it with a VAT tax based on the positive effects such tax reform has on the economy and on raising revenue in many other Western countries.

The answer is not, however, to attack popular programs like PBS and once again get labelled as those "mean" Republicans who want to cut Big Bird.  Nor is the answer to sit around and do nothing because the problem won't solve itself.  Cutting pork and waste, self-discipline, and reform of taxes and entitlements are the only way out of this situation.

My point is two-fold:

First, there is no such thing as a true budget hawk in Congress. Legislators are first and foremost appropriators. I stand ready to apologize -- in all caps -- if Saint John the McCain, Chuck Martyr Hagel, and/or Blessed Dick Lugar rush to the President's side, rallying support, fighting pork, and calling in chips. I don't see that happening.

Second, I heartily and wholeheartedly expect the non-politico financial conservatives to harrumph and decide that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Bush is never good enough -- steel tariffs! farm subsidies! budget cuts that aren't big enough! -- despite his impressive free trade creds, etc. I therefore would be mightily amazed to see the fiscal cons actually put their feet down and side with Bush on this.

I would therefore expect you to be all over this like an army of starving Weight Watchers rejects on an emergency shipment of Snickers.

Last point: Much better tone. I'm proud of you. Give in to your anger. Embrace the Dark Side.

Fiscal conservatives, I hear your wails of fury.

Is there any question that the Republican Revolution of 1994 has now turned to a bunch of weak-kneed Washingtonians, who are bought and paid for by the special interests in their home districts?

Have some cojones, people. Cut a frickin program.

It's amazing to think that they once promised eliminating whole departments... and we believed them.

Here's a clue for you, Erick.

The President now has an executive branch packed with friendly faces, a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, and a reasonably sympathetic Court.  The levers are in your hands.  You have four years to demonstrate to us all that conservative Republican governance is going to make a thousand flowers bloom, just as you all have been claiming for lo these 40 years.

If the best use you can make of it is this:

"But, while we're in charge, let's fund our pet programs and not theirs"

you can reasonably expect to be shown the door four years from now, and you will richly deserve it.

The government of the United States of America is not your box of toys.

Cheers -

to social conservatives is apt, because there is always some court willing to issue a diktat to forbid whatever social conservatives want to achieve.  I would love to witness the implementation of a proposal to limit spending to 20% of GDP, provided that it favours military and intel spending, as these are surely more critical than farm subsidies and gigantic bridges in the middle of nowhere with some politician's name on them.  More critical than Viagra for the senior set, too.

when we called for the abolition of the Dept. of (Mis)education.  The dream was so much nicer than the reality.

I'm a small government conservative on all but a tiny handful of issues. I'd love a balanced budget -- not a surplus, that means they have too much of my money. And I'm more than slightly cheesed that it took a solid year for the GOP to turn into the party of pork. But I also realized, to my dismay, that there's no way around human nature. The next wave of fiscal conservatives in government will smoothly morph into the next wave of big spenders. Bank on it.

I certainly don't hate the fiscal cons. God help me the day that happens. It's not my raison d'etre, and I'd trade it for a lot, but I'm rather fond of low taxes and small government, thanks.

And I like the sound of your proposal, but I'd like exceptions for wars and silly things like that.

Try convincing your party of that, too.

Give them access to the purse, and they invariably realize that spending is a better incumbent protection plan than redistricting.

I've said it before: I'll apologize if I'm wrong. But I don't see that happening.

That Maximos is right. There's no "constitutional" prohibition on balancing the books -- just a lack of stomach by even budget hawks, when their own nest might get fouled.

That is what politicians should be deciding.  The problem is right now they choose both.  Again and again.  So make them choose between the two and we can elect people based on it.

TABOR limits the growth of government to inflation+population growth.  That works for me or more simply just capping it at 20% of GDP.  You want to spend more, then grow the economy.  You can run deficits and surpluses depending on the recession/boom cycles.  It would have to be a Constitutional amendment or at least take a supermajority to violate the caps.  You may want to waive it for wars (declared by Congress of course) although I don't think "emergency spending" should be exempt, it is too large a hole.

And FWIW, I ran the (unofficial) Coburn blog because I agreed so strongly with his fiscal conservative creeds and I did it in spite of his far right social views ("rampant lesbianism in SE Oklahoma").  I hope he doesn't let me down.

Those were the days that led me too abandon my self-imposed exile to the Independent mountain top, and come down to wrestle in the mud with the Republicans.  Unfortanutly, the pig has escaped and continues to grow.  If only we could recover that spirit of '94.  I can't help but recall that Gingrich was running the show back then... maybe he wouldn't be such a bad Presidental canadidate after all...

but I cannot conceive of a way to force them upon the political class; there's no constituency for them....

You want fiscal conservatism, try elected someone who is already known for his restraint.

How about someone who stood up to his own party's pork barrel legislators by bringing actual pigs named Pork and Barrel into the state legislature to embarass them into being more frugal.  It may have backfired but it was creative and showed some guts.

"Pork won and taxpayers lost"

Let's go for a real, known fiscal conservative next time around.

We need to be shrinking the gov't (and budget) not just holding the line.  We need a revolution again.  If only the '94 revolt had come in a Presidental year.  Do you think that if Gingrich comes back to a position of power that he could convince Republicans to cut programs?  He managed to do it in '95 and '96, and that was with Clinton vetoing budgets and the MSM screaming bloody murder.  I had always felt that Gingrich's time had passed, but if electing him President would result in a restoration of disciple on the budget among Republicans then I'd be willing to fight for him.

And he accredits it to self-imposed term limits.  They allow him to govern with the future in mind instead of his political career.

But he supposedly has that McCain style appeal that makes him popular with independents.  Would he play north of Mason-Dixon?  If so, he might be a good candidate.

Congress does. It's all well and good to have a fiscal conservative at 1600, but unless you have serious hawks -- a rare species, in my observation, once ensconsed in Congress -- in the pretty building near all the different kinds of trees, you're just gonna butt your head against the wall.

Admittedly, that was funny.

Provisionally. He's the exception that proves the rule.

in some older threads, but FWIW, Newt has too much baggage to make a serious run for the Presidency.  We do need him as a strategist, though.  

I wish it were otherwise, but once they get in, legislators realize that they can best stay that way by keeping the bread and circuses coming.

Gingrich broke.

Thomas -

As a point of fact, I'm not a Democrat.  But, I'm probably closer to the traditional definition of a Democrat than that of a Republican.

Your point is apt.  I'll do my best.

Cheers -

If Bush was shaming conservatives right now into spending less and threatening a veto, he could do much more.  I understand there are other battles (including SS which I feel almost stronger about) but a President can do much more than Bush is doing right, especially when his party is in power.

Line...

Item...

Veto.

Conservatives should insist on it.

However, I don't think Sanford is running for President in 2008.  At least I haven't heard anything.  Also I think we ought to look among those already being considered and see if any of them fit the bill.  Low and behold at least two of them qualify.  #1 is Newt Gingrich whose budget cutting zeal extended so far as to defying the President's veto and shuting down the gov't.  (Oh that was nice, for a while we were free, free I tell you! Uh, um, sorry, lost my head there, memories of those shuttered federal building does that to me.)  #2 is McCain, who is also infamous for his efforts to reduce the level of political pork, although he doesn't have a lot of results to show for it, certainly nothing like Gingrich.    So there you have it- the questions are though: Is McCain young enough to run?  Will those he has offended support him?  Do Gingrich's personal troubles make him off-limits?  Will the MSM destroy him again?  Are there other credible budget cutters among the canadidates?  Look for the answers to these and other questions in the future.  

The SCOTUS has ruled it unconstitutional, has it not?

If you're suggesting a drive for a Constutional Amendment, I'm there.

Yeah, Gingrich broke, but I have more respect for a man who fought the good fight and lost than those who win by going over to dark side.

I like the mental image I just got:  Gingrich=ObiWan "Strike me down know and I will become more powerful than you can possably imagine"  

Did  Gingrich leave behind a protege to play Luke to his ObiWan?

It was part of the Contract With America, if I remember correctly.

especially those that don't work:

Abstinence Education: $193 million this year

Missile Defense: $10.7 Billion last year.

And for fun, Searching for WMD in the sand: $156 Billion so far.

Cmon now, really.  You can call when you are actually serious about cutting spending, because there's a lot more waste where that came from.

Education.

Health and Human Services.

Any funding for Planned Parenthood.

Anything for Robert Byrd.

Interior.

IRS.

UN dues/program funding.

Costs for our Kosovo/Bosnia missions.

Energy.

Many, we can keep 'em coming all day.

About the perfect and the enemy of the good.

They shouldn't need to be shamed into anything. They're not children. He gave them a lower budget and they threw a fit. Responsibility where it's due, man.

Scroll down that front page. While the big comment draws are culture, it ain't SocioCon 2005 out there. Just because I take a shot -- a so far well-grounded shot, I might add, as I have yet to see any fiscal con rally to Bush on this -- at the constant inability of Congressional budget hawks to do anything more than preen doesn't mean we're pushing out the fiscal cons. Actually, the post as worded was a call for budget discipline, which is something I'd imagine you'd be into.

The veto was ruled unconstitutional after it had been enacted as a result of the CWA. The drive to make it an amendment picked up after that.

Thomas is a bit much for me most of the time... but this time he's going after the weasels in office who refuse to locate their spine if they have one.  I'm a social AND fiscal conservative (who knew you could be both), and I'm just as upset as Thomas.  How do you get an attack on fiscal conservative RSers out of his post?

...said that he was a "...Republican who wants to keep the party of small government in power."

Well, now that Republicans own the White House and have significant majorities in both houses of Congress, they have their chance to earn this moniker.  No more excuses.

Frankly, if I don't see some progress toward reigning in the federal gargantuan over the next two or three years, I'll be looking seriously at the Libertarian Party, especially if they get rid of that mandatory oath.  Read Chuck Muth's speech to the LP Convention at citizenoutreach.com (click on the "Always Right" icon.)  If the LP takes just a few of these suggestions, I believe a LOT of people will be joining me.

BTW, the only effective candidate against the new and improved Hillary will be the bright and shining Condi.  Think about it.  Some warmed-over, nominally conservative white guy against the politically astute distaff Clinton.  Sorry, it won't wash.  Condi is our only hope in '08 if Hill hits the trail.

"anything for Robert Byrd"

The man's an institution when he commands his own category.  A true pork prince.

We are caught in a death spiral of spending because both parties have learned that the easiest way to get elected is to promise the voters other people's money.  Frankly I am starting to think that demcrats really are the more fiscally repsonsible party because so many republicans want to increase spending and only pay for them with more taxcuts.  At least democrats are willing to actually propose the higher taxes to pay for the programs they want.  

Really the only way I see out of the spending death spiral is for the 10th amendment to be enforced again so none of these federal programs are allowed anymore.  If the federal goverment was restricted by a more realistic reading of the commerce clause many of these problems would vanish immediately.  My worst fear is that social conservatives have been paying lip service to the federalist society judges. And now that republicans control the presidency, house, and senate that they will see those federalist society judges as a hinderance to their goals.  That the party out of power will always be the group clamoring for the federal goverment to be restricted so states can have more flexibility.  

is stopped at what intersection right now?

Does anyone who is a position to do something about this (congress? senate? GWB?) even have this on their radar screen?

Man, do I miss the 1995-version of the GOP.

All Sex Ed (5-10 times the abstinence budget)

Repeal the Medicare Bill

End corporate welfare (everything from farms to universities)

etc.

etc.

that's why.

He would never roll over this easy on social issues.  You won't hear him say "oh pro-life causes were just a dream."  He, echoing Erick in the CPAC libertarians thread, wants social issues to be sacrosanct while fiscal ones are convenient.  If it wasn't for abortion, I would be willing to give fiscally conservatives Dems a chance in power.  Fortunately for Republicans, Dems have decided that abortion is a litmus test for them.

When conflict occurs between fiscal conservatives and social ones, most of the people here are pushing the social agenda.  Does anyone want to return education to the states?  Republicans used to and not just ones "in internet constituencies."  Being pro-small government won over many independents and created a majority in 1994.  We're overplaying the importance of the religious right and underplaying the importance of fiscal conservatism in the party.

might be thought.  The reasons for the precedence social issues have over fiscal or "federalist" issues is simply that meaningful federalism is dead, and that for a variety of reasons.   Republican politicians were persuaded by the PR debacle of the 95 shutdown that the American people do not want education returned to the states.  Period.  The same, I believe, obtains with respect to many other issues which the Republicans once advocated be left, or returned, to the states.  

As for those regions of policy where social conservative priorities conflict with those of small-government conservatives, blame the friggen' courts, which are always at the ready to quash any impetus towards self-government, at the state level, on those questions.   To refuse to nationalize these issues, in the absence of a serious effort to impose discipline on the judiciary, is to concede them to the left.

We do this from time to time.

I'll be the first to admit that I'd trade permanent deficits for the end of Roe. Frankly, it's not a hard choice to make. In fact, I'd probably trade almost every issue at the front of your plate for that.

Don't take that to mean I won't fight on them. You're talking to one of the few Federalist Society members in his law school class. I'll go to war for federalism 80% of the time, with the caveat that it's a process, not an end in itself. I hate large government. It makes all sorts of messes and causes all sorts of harm. I hate taxes. I don't hate government, but I have a vaguely uneasy relationship with it.

What made the majority in 1994 was Democrats losing their edge, losing their grip, and overplaying what was left of their hand on a host of issues.

If I'm willing to push all sorts of stuff to the side, due respect, I suspect you are too. It's called "politics." Doesn't mean I don't respect you or what you stand for; if you ever got that opinion, my apologies. But we all push for what's most important, and play the art of the possible.

And I called it a dream because the craven suckweasels in office now are utterly incapable, as all humans are, from divorcing themselves from pork. Not because I don't want to see it happen; because I'm quite frightened it never will.

Ultimately, it is the voters' fault for wanting the impossible and believing politicians who promise the impossible.  Republicans have two choices: be fiscally responsible and get thrown out of office for their trouble or continue down the present path until harsh economic reality gets them thrown out of office.

I find any praise of Bush's proposed budget baffling.  As David Brooks pointed out, it is millions wise and trillions foolish.  The prescription drug program alone absolutely dwarfs any cuts in terms of long-term impact.  Anything that doesn't undo Bush's major spending initiatives of the last four years is just closing the barn door long after the horse has left.

I opposed NCLB, I understand the frustration with schools and teachers who don't feel the need to educate students to certain basic standards, but NCLB is the wrong method to achieve reform.  What we need is to empower parents, and the only way to do that is through school vouchers.

NCLB and the Medicare bills were just bad bills.  They've increased the size and scope of the federal government and seem to be doing the opposite of what was intended, which is to make these programs work better for the public and cost the taxpayer less.  I really think Bush should revisit them, but he probably has his second term plate full with SocSec reform and the war.  Perhaps the next GOP nominee should campaign on similar structural changes to the way the feds handle education and Medicare as those Bush is proposing for SocSec.  After all, if we can touch the third rail and hold onto Congress, we can do just about anything, including more market-oriented approaches to entitlements.

They already have them for the federal government. They are just systematically ignored.

And, for the record, I think that Thomas was lamenting the ineffectiveness of politicians to carry through on their promises, rather than the basic idea behind fiscal conservatism. For instance, I might join with Thomas in saying that that there really are no such things as pro-life politicians - not in the sense that I understand the word. For instance, the "pro-life" Senators laid down without a peep over the confirmation of Bader Ginsburg, and even Reagan gave us O'Connor and Kennedy. I think I have every reason to be nervous about "I don't think there should be a litmus test" Bush, but it sure was better than "I'll only nominate appointees who support Roe v. Wade" Kerry. Sometimes that is the nature of the beast.

I think everyone on this site would love to have a Senate full of Tom Coburns (in the fiscal sense). Unfortunately, not everyone lives in the great state of Oklahoma.

MachoNachos

I am so fortunate.

The "spending caps" which do indeed deserve scare quotes fail because they are majority rules.  So if a majority wants to pass a budget that breaks them, then it will just change them.  I would like to see a 2/3rd or 3/4ths rule that caps spending.  And don't cap it to an amount which must change as the economy grows and inflation raises prices.  Cap it as a % of GDP or cap the growth to pop+inflation growth.

The best case would be a Con. amendment with a TABOR instead of a balanced budget amendment.

Having been associated with the Government in the past, there is one basic flaw that gears the entire system toward waste.  That is the way that budgeting is done in the government.  If a department is able to save money, they are then penalized the next year by the amount that they were able to save.  It has been that way for many years and seems too show no hope of changing soon.

EnglishPrivateer