For those conservatives still wary about supporting my man McCain this year, I suggest you take a gander at an article which appeared this morning in the Los Angeles Times. Here, we learn at the presumptive GOP presidential nominee is taking aiming at spending. Remember, this is the guy who in 2003, faulted his congressional colleagues for their spendthrift ways, accusing them of spending “like a drunken sailor.”
The Arizona Senator may have parted company with the GOP on several issues near and dear to the hearts of conservatives, but on two key planks from the Reagan platform, he has been remarkably consistent over the years: remaining steadfast on national security and holding the line on federal spending.
And this while other presumptive conservatives proposed their own earmarks and signed onto bloated budget bills. So, when the presumptive Republican nominee contends our party’s based “has been de-energized to a degree because of spending,” he’s got a point.
Contrast his commitment to fiscal prudence with the record and proposals of his Democratic rivals for the White House.
Glenn Reynolds reported on Tuesday that Ms. Hillary requested “nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year.” Her Arizona colleague has promised to eliminate earmarks.
While both Mrs. Clinton and her Democratic rival “champion fiscal responsibility on the campaign trail . . . , both Democratic presidential hopefuls are promising massive new spending without providing details on how they’d pay for it.” That quote wasn’t from some conservative blog, but from a news article.
Electing either Democrat would mean further increasing our national debt, increasing the tax burden or both. Not to mention increasing the role of the federal government in our lives.
Controlling the size and scope of the federal government has been at the heart of the American conservative movement since its inception. And John McCain has stood up to spendthrift Congresses and profligate presidents. Conservatives may not agree with him on other issues, but on this one he has stood firm.
On another note, for a portrait of John McCain, the man, you must read this piece by Karl Rove.
I have seen it reported that McCain, in his entire career, has never asked for ONE earmark. None. Spending aside, it is at least refreshing to see someone passably familiar with the Constitution seeking high office.
GPW:
So. McCain says he will “aim” at spending. And therefore, he’s fiscally conservative? That’s it? He promises to think hard about it? Didn’t Bush say that? Twice? Didn’t the GOP promise that in 2000? 2002? 2004? 2006?
And his “commitment to fiscal prudence” is proved to you by his comments at a campaign stop? Have you considered actually looking at his proposals?
McCain Seeks Costly Tax Cuts, but Vague on Paying for Them
He has tax breaks, mortgage giveaways, etc. But he has no idea where the money comes to pay for them. So, in other words, “Electing McCain would mean further increasing our national debt.” At least Democrats admit the money has to come from somewhere, even the hated taxes. McCain’s proposals will simple spend more and not pay for them. How is that fiscally conservative?
More: McCain Tax Cuts Would Bloat Deficit Or Take Huge Spending Curbs. The article is subscription only, but it’s hardly from a liberal site. Those “spending curbs” are described as “unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of federal spending on domestic programs.” Again, I ask you gentlemen and gentlewomen: is this fiscal conservatism?
First, the idea of “paying for” tax cuts is a misnomer. Tax cuts are the government choosing to take a permanent reduction in income. The only reason they would need to be “paid for” is because of the Democrat view that all money earned should be paid to the government; therefore, they see a tax cut as stealing money that belongs to the government in the first place.
And second, did you just really ask if cutting spending constitutes fiscal conservativism? I assure you, it does.
The problem is, torrentprime, that Democrat Party members like yourself simply aren’t capable of handling the thought that people can spend their money themselves far more effectively than the government can spend it for them. You and your fellow liberal elites view tax cuts as an affront, as stealing the money that you think you deserve and that we should be giving to you to spend for us because we poor slobs aren’t as smart as you are.
Well, that is PART of the problem but a larger part and one more amenable to change by us is that the Reps talk a good game and can play a mediocre game on this terrain when a Dem is in the top seat but have failed to deliver otherwise for many years. Of course it is quite laughable when the Marxists of today whine about deficit spending but for the guy who barely knows the difference between the parties, it is plausible for the Democrat to claim greater rectitude at least until he is IN office. That said, any of the Dems are worse and FAR worse than McC on this. But just try proving it. Only hard experience… I’m thinkin’ of the Carter years, will impart this lesson.
#2 – TP conveniently forgets one hard solid fact: it is our money, not Washington’s.
Regards,
Peter H.
Conservative on spending…liberal on everything else.
First, I think McCain’s priorities are misplaced. Earmarks are a drop in the bucket and don’t always raise spending, but often just direct bureaucrats to spend money on specific projects from their budget allocation. The real problem is entitlements… which McCain won’t take on because, unlike earmarks, entitlement reform won’t win him praise from the MSM. Fixing earmarks and ignoring entitlements is like treating a hangnail while the patient dies of cancer.
It’s like McCain proposing a temporary moratorium on the 18-cent gasoline tax while simultaneously sponsoring a bill (McCain-Lieberman) that will raise the price of gas by 68 cents a gallon.
If you read the article on Clinton’s request none it seems to be out of line, and none of it has to do with building a bridge to no where. She does need to focus on her senate seat after this primary is over, since it is most likely that she is not going to be the nominee. Bringing money back to your state is one of the easiest ways to point to something you did for your state, so its an electoral cushion too.
Earmarks that can be justfied for the public good don’t really bother me, rather the money to go to something worthwhile if it is going to be used. Canidates do act on ways to benefit their voting base, and getting money is one of those ways.
A tax break which McCain proposes that will pay for itself is the cut of corporate tax rates. The US now has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Tax competition is a fact. Labor isn’t the only cost to multi-nationals.
#3 First, the idea of “paying for†tax cuts is a misnomer.
Yes and no.
When you carve out a tax cut for one group (homeowners, parents, people who install energy efficient water heaters) the rest of us have to pay to make up the difference .
If everyone received the same benefit for the tax cut, I would agree.
I’ve concluded that the left’s Useful Idiots (like #2) are as necessary as any other commentors in making these discussions fun. We, the comparatively sensible people, enjoy the frission of their night-is-day inversions.
I think that’s a better point from a good person, though perhaps a tad inverted still. It’s not *really* a tax cut for them; it only looks that way. It’s really more like extra taxes on the rest of us. And there is no inherent, metaphysical reason we have to pay, i.e., it should entirely be possible to cut budgets and reduce taxes for all. We (as a country / society) just lack the insight and/or leadership to do that.
Spot on, ILC.
Really, the logical argument for a flat tax is that inherent fairness; it taxes everyone equally and it doesn’t make your tax bill contingent on doing specific things.
The tax code is, at its core, social engineering; it’s designed overall to punish the successful and reward the unsuccessful, while carving out along the way little lacunae for things that the government at one point in time deemed useful, like home ownership or energy-efficient water heaters.
So we’re all in agreement?
#2
Yes, spending has greatly increased under Bush and the Republicans.
But let’s get real please.
Aside from defense and automatic increases in entitlement spending, the vast majority of spending increases have been the result of the new homeland security department, and the prescription drug benefit. Both Democrat proposals that were initially opposed by Republicans. Republicans lost the debate for whether we should create a homeland security department or a prescription drug benefit, but they were able to win the battle over cost.
Democrats wanted to spend vastly more on both, and complained loudly that we weren’t spending enough — in fact, there is not one single thing Republicans did that Democrats didn’t want to spend vastly more on.
And the idea that “tax cuts” are an expenditure is not just a misnomer, it’s also both ignorant and insulting.
Tax revenue is the government’s income. A tax cut is, at best, a pay-cut. But not even necessarily that as tax cuts can pay for themselves by actually increasing revenue to the government as Bush’s tax cuts have done.
Let’s also not forget Republicans were on track, and had been for several years, to eliminate the deficit by 2012 according to the GAO. That is until Democrats took control of the purse strings, and now thats all shot to hell. Not coincidentally, Republicans were in control last time the budget was balanced as well.
If Republicans are to succeed in cutting spending, something even Ronald Reagan was unable to do, they must first figure out a way to win the public debates in the face of a combined Democrat/media onslaught of demonization, demagoguery and misinformation.
So spending our money on a hippie museum in the asshole of America is far more important than connecting folks to an airport in a burgeoning tourist area? Premier Klinton’s answer is stealing profits from American companies stupid enough to still operate in this country.
Where do you see a hippie museum in any of the article? I don’t know what you are talking about. New York is hardly the asshole of America considering how much it contributes back to the nation…so I don’t know what that comment was about.
#16 – DER, he’s referring to the Woodstock Memorial Museum that Hillary wanted in upstate NY earlier this past year.
The best quote out of the whole story was from McCain, when he was asked about the Congressional earmark for the museum: “I heard Woodstock was going on in 1967, but I was tied up at the moment.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Oh yeah. Friends, Seinfeld, NYPD Blue, Will & Grace etc. Thanks for nothing. Yankees suck, Knicks suck, Giants suck, Jets suck. The Statue of Liberty belongs to New Jersey. It’s not much of an improvement, but it’s true.
At one point, New York’s largest industry was slave ships. Thanks for that. New York was also one of the colonies/states opposed to exploration and expansion of the west.
BTW, New Yorkers and other Yankees come down here to Florida, Charleston “West Pawlm” etc. and do their damndest to make it more like the hole they crawled out of. And they don’t tip our wait staffs either. Further, they tend to vote here and absentee back where they really live. They love to double dip in the elections.
I could go on, but I’m done now.
You are a whiney little bitch tonight.
/j
#19 – OK girls, knock it off. Go and make nice now. 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
Make me