A Time To Stand
By JayReding Posted in User Blogs — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Bumped up front by Erick.
The Republican Party has always had the reputation of being the party of smaller government - yet in the years where GOP has control of the White House, the Senate, and the House, non-defense discretionary spending has skyrocketed. The Bush Administration's single biggest flaw in terms of domestic policy has been its utter unwillingness to control the rate of growth in government. Bush's tax cuts have helped grow the economy, but the rate of spending - especially the massive fiscal burden of the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement - threaten the fiscal future of this country.
Moreover, they hurt the future of the Republican Party. The three most basic tenets of the GOP since the Reagan Revolution have been 1) rolling back the size and intrusiveness of government, 2) defending the institution of the American family and American civic culture, and 3) a strong national defense. There are tensions between those goals, but they represent the core values of our party, broad principles which all Republicans agree on and aspire to. President Bush is resolute on the third, strong on the second, but has abandoned the first.
Republicans by and large understand that government power and individual liberty are at odds with each other. The growth of the state by necessity requires the abdication of small amounts of personal liberty. This country was founded upon the notion that civil society, not the state, is the best agent of action for dealing with this country's problems. In the balance between state power and personal liberty, liberty should take precedence. President Reagan, a man who represented some of the best of modern conservatism, understood this and was unafraid to share that message with the American public.
President Bush faces the unprecedented task of having to rebuild miles upon miles of devastated coastline while a second massive storm threatens to unleash similar devastation. The costs of rebuilding from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will be massive, and the federal government has a statutory obligation to help the region rebuild. Such an effort combined with the ongoing worldwide war on terrorism and the other crucial functions of government add to the fiscal strain.
Now, more than ever, President Bush must demand that Congress restrain spending. This country faces a crisis that is unprecedented in our history - and the true test of President Bush's leadership will be in how he rises to the occasion and leads this country.
Circumstances have not been kind to President Bush. The level of strain placed upon him by the events of his Presidency is something most Americans can only imagine. The vitriolic and hate-filled rhetoric launched at him by his opponents is unprecedented in modern history. Yet the burden of leadership demands action. President Bush was too slow in personally showing leadership after Katrina, and his poll numbers have suffered as a result. He faces the hatred of the Democrats, but also a Republican Party that is rightfully worried about the direction of this country and our fiscal future.
President Bush went from an isolationist to a nation-builder by necessity following the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Now, necessity demands that he go from being a big spender to a fiscal hawk. We do not need more pork, we need to focus all of our government's efforts at meeting the immediate needs of war and reconstruction. Every member of Congress has a patriotic duty to put the good of the country as a whole over sending pork to their districts. And the President should lead them in that regard by promising to veto any appropriations bill that includes unnecessary pork projects. The President should work with Congress to stop the Medicare prescription drug benefit and replace it with a targeted program that gives drugs only to those who have a true need for it.
In a time of crisis, Americans are perfectly willing to make sacrifices. Republicans must reassert the values of fiscal discipline and smaller government. It was a good idea then; it has become critical now.
If Republican members of Congress cannot control their urge to spending, the political backlash will be huge. The future of this country, and the future of our party depends on our willingness to stand firm on the core values of our party. Our President needs to show leadership, and our Congress needs to follow. The political power of the Republican Party is based on the strength of our principles, and we will win or lose based largely in part into how well we defend and establish those principles. It is time to affirm our identity as the party of small government or risk losing that which defines us as a party.
I'd like to add one thing to your otherwise excellent call for actions over words when it comes to fiscal restraint and smaller government. You started off by mentioning:
1) rolling back the size and intrusiveness of government, 2) defending the institution of the American family and American civic culture, and 3) a strong national defense. There are tensions between those goals, but they represent the core values of our party, broad principles which all Republicans agree on and aspire to. President Bush is resolute on the third, strong on the second, but has abandoned the first.
The problem here is that Bush seems to have relegated all three of these things to lip service only. Has Bush honestly done anything meaningful other than give verbal and some financial support (faith-based initiative, revoking federal funds for "family planning") to defend the family and our civic culture? I would agree that our national offense is definitely strong, but as for our defense, well, if we were attacked on our home soil today, let's just say I wouldn't count on federal help for at least a week. I'm not saying we aren't fighting the right war in the right place (still undecided; history will tell us the answer to that one), but the homeland defense front doesn't seem much stronger than on 9/11.
That being said, the President has not done active damage to homeland defense or to preservation of the American family and culture. He has, however, knowingly done active damage to the fiscal health of the USA as well as to the effort to shrink government. Not just abandonment, but active damage. And I am glad more people are willing to draw the line in the sand.
This is about fiscal discipline, not yet another opportunity to debunk Democrat talking points on Iraq.
9/11 and Iraq has been talked about MANY times in the past, take discussion of the linkage of the two "events" elsewhere. ("events" is in quotes because the Iraq War is still ongoing, whereas 9/11 is over)
The relationship of the "War on terror" to fiscal discipline is another matter. - The expenditures on the military and the war can be lumped in with point 3) Strong National Defense.
This seems to be one of those classic RedState in Wonderland pieces.
Jay Reding states flatly that "The three most basic tenets of the GOP since the Reagan Revolution have been 1) rolling back the size and intrusiveness of government...
Since I'm pressed for time, I'll comment on number one only. Sadly, for the Mr. Reding there is no objective evidence that rolling back the size and intrusiveness of government has been anything more than a tenet of core Republican rhetoric. Reagan didn't shrink government. George HW Bush didn't shrink government. And George W. Bush, obviously, has talked incessantly about this, while moving tirelessly in the opposite direction. Amazingly, only Clinton, of the presidents since Reagan took office, managed to cut the size and cost of government (by some measures).
Perhaps, this was today's RedState contribution to comic relief.
The American Enterprise Institute ran some numbers on this here. Bush 1st and Clinton both get credit for shrinking the overall discretionary spending (through a decrease in military costs).
By contrast, GWB is in LBJ territory.
President Bush must demand that Congress restrain spending.
The Energy Bill and Transportation Bill both seem to be largely congressional creations but some of the biggest discretionary items to come along were created or pushed heavily by the WH:
- IRAQ
- No Child Left Behind
- Medicare Drug Benefit
- Katrina Deal
Sad to say, there is much truth in the criticism that the Republican majority in Congress has given, at best, only lip service to the notion that restraining the growth of the federal government, and its voracious budget, is a "core value." As Peggy Noonan notes in today's WSJ, President Bush (despite his many strong qualities) has been the opposite of a leader on this score. The endless riot of spending, including such remarkable items as a $220 million Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska (to be named, not inappropriately, after Alaska's Republican Rep. Don Young), just continues unabated. At the same time, bizarre and bloated bureaucratic constructs, such as the Department of Homeland Security, have been foisted on the Nation; and entitlement programs balloon and expand (see as a prime example the "prescription drug benefit" boondoggle of 2004) seemingly in unstoppable fashion.
And all of this from a self-described conservative Republican administration working with a Congress controlled by Republicans? Wake me up when it's all over.
It's all well and good to root for the home team, but let's not be blinded to reality either. This is one area where the critics are right to skoff at claims that smaller government is a "core value" of the Republicans controlling the federal government. And unless they get their act together, the claim that the Dems would be worse becomes an ever more untenable argument to take to the electorate. At some point, the Dems will wake up -- think Hillary, for example -- and will use the glaring contradiction between conservative words and conservative deeds on this score to convince the voters to give the Dem team another shot at runnnig the show. And a public tired of hearing one thing and seeing another, will give them that shot.
Don't cut you.
Don't cut me.
Cut that man behind the tree.
Republicans must demand that Bush & Congress reduce government spending. Otherwise, there will be consequences from Republican voters which will be...................
This seems to be one of those classic RedState in Wonderland pieces.
It takes quite a leap of logic to call someone criticizing the President as an example of living in Wonderland. I would have figured that my tone would have made that quite clear.
Jay Reding states flatly that "The three most basic tenets of the GOP since the Reagan Revolution have been 1) rolling back the size and intrusiveness of government...
Exactly.
Sadly, for the Mr. Reding there is no objective evidence that rolling back the size and intrusiveness of government has been anything more than a tenet of core Republican rhetoric.
[i]The[/i] Mr. Reding? Wow, what did I do to deserve an article?
Snark aside, you do have a point. Smaller government is a tenet of Republican rhetoric. Whether or not we actually uphold that value doesn't negate the fact that it remains a key value for our party.
In the case of Reagan and Bush père, they had to deal with a Democratic Congress, and the only way to stop them from spending was to shut down the government - which is exactly what we ended up doing to Clinton.
Perhaps, this was today's RedState contribution to comic relief.
And perhaps your comment was an example of utterly and completely missing the point...
...less fundraising, and fewer voters.
There is a constituency of people who are ticked with the GOP over spending. Even if it's a small one, it could be enough to cause some serious trouble. Especially since it's bloggers, who tend to be more politically active and more likely to donate to candidates.
the diary I, Heretic by Nick Danger here on Redstate. Even while I want to disagree with Nick, I find that I can't do so fully. I have a sneaking suspicion that he's right: the voters talk a good game about fiscal responsibility, but when it's time to vote, they go for the guy who brings home the pork.
If espousing smaller government and fiscal restraint leads to electoral defeat for the Republicans, then the Democrats end up in power and build monuments to bureaucracy and state control.
I feel as if this is a watershed moment for the modern Conservative movement. Are we moving away from "restrain size and intrusiveness of government" towards a new paradigm of "Pork, Our Way" not just in practice but also in principle?
-TS
Nick made a really interesting argument, and he could well be right. Personally, I'm not so sure that fiscal conservatives are going to be willing to stay silent, especially now. Republican politicians can't afford to alienate fiscal conservatives, especially if they succeed in making federal spending a campaign issue.
Politicians are always self-interested - if the "porkbusting" crusade takes off, we'll start to see some movement towards spending reform. In fact, the Democrats are trying to triangulate on the issue, which suggests that attitudes towards pork are starting to change.
I think that the GOP should restrain spending on principle, and they'll be hurt politically if they do not. However, I wouldn't bet the farm on that - not yet, and it remains an open question as to whether I'm right or Nick is.
According to my pal Matt Miller*, under Bush the federal government is spending 20% of GDP but only taking in 16%. Both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush spent 22% of GDP on average, thus indicating to non-ideologues that our poor fiscal health is a revenue problem, not so much a spending problem.
Secondly, I think its kinda pathetic that conservatives all seem to be suddenly discovering that there is a problem here. Bush made that new Medicare liability in the first time, not to mention other spending and liability increases. There is nothing new here.
You should have known that your candidate was less a small-government ideologue than he was just plain irresponsible.
your "pal" and go drivel elsewhere.
I'm in favor of lots of cutting personally and here is a sample.
- Whack back on both the Energy and Transportation Bills.
- Cancel or downsize the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
- Phase the federal government out of education funding.
- Eliminate agricultural subsidies.
is that no one wants their own programs cut, or the programs that support people they know, instead they want to cut programs for strangers..
the fly in the ointment, Hans, the monkey in the wrench, the pain in the...
Well anyway, I encourage you to go to page 24 of this document. As in all else, we tend to be captives of the news media, which has been hammering the meme for five years now that Bush & the Republican Congress have been spending like drunken sailors.
According to this table, that ain't the case, especially if you pull defense & homeland security out of the mix. Non-defense & HS discretionary spending rose 15% in 2001 (Clinton's budget); 6% in 2002; 5% in 2003; 4% in 2004; 2% in 2005 (not counting hurricane stuff). The president's budget requested a 1% cut in 2005.
Look, I put up a post the other day about cutting the space shuttle (>$4.5 billion a year), the Department of Education (>$79 billion a year) and flood insurance, which is such a poor risk that government has to sell it. I got attacked. I was shocked. Shocked!
The fact is that Bush and the GOP have done a better job of controlling spending than almost anyone is willing to give them credit for. And if they can't get credit for it at redstate.org, then we're hosed.
I just don't understand how it related to my original comment -- his oh so clever little adjunct notwithstanding.
may be dividided government: either a GOP president with a Dem Congress or a GOP Congress. We know this works, as witness the late 90s. Two cheers for gridlock anyone?
President Bush went from an isolationist to a nation-builder by necessity following the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
The nation building ir Iraq is related to 9/11 how?