GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Our Critics & the Meaning of the Word, “Finally”

by

Twice in my post celebrating the House Republicans’ unanimous rejection of the Democrats’ spendthrift “stimulus” package, I used the adverb “finally” to describe the GOP’s return to fiscal prudence.  For this, two readers scolded me (and/or Republicans) in the comments section.

Instead of focusing on the current vote, they preferred to dwell on the past, reminding us (and rightfully so) in one critic’s words that when in power, Republicans “spent, overspent, and way overspent.”  That critic would do well to note that they did not go on such on a binge for eight years.  For the last two years, the Democratic Party controlled Congress and increased federal domestic spending at a greater rate than had Republicans in the preceding six.

As those who actually read this blog know (as opposed to those who comment to a post after reading its title, skimming its first few lines and drawing from their ideas (usually false) of what Republicans believe), we have long been critical of President Bush and past Republican Congresses for not staying true to the party’s Reaganite principles and holding the line on government spending.  I used the word “finally” to celebrate their return to those core principles.

Maybe it takes losing power for Republicans to see what ideas helped them gain that power in the first place.   Let’s hope that finally my party has learned its lesson.   Instead of praising the GOP for what it is today, our critics remind us of what it was in the past, as if that past profligacy justifies the Democrats’ one-upmanship, way-way-way overspending when Republicans just way overspent.

And let’s hope they remember it when they win that power back again.  If Democrats succeed in passing this spendthrift “stimulus,” then the American people will see the majority party for what it is, an outfit committed to growing the size of government and limiting the arena in which individuals may operate freely.

Comments

  2. “Reaganite principles”
    You do know that debt went from 700 mil to 3 trillion right under Regan. So really Bush and his Congress were Reaganites to the extreme.
    Perhaps you meant to say “Regan’s Stated – but not lived up to – Principles”

  3. Kudos to Congressmen John Boehner, and Eric Kanter. for keeping all of our horese in the corral. We have an alternative to the Pelosi´s package and as long the message can get out people wall see that we do have better ideas and can earn our way back to govern. Senator Mitch McConnell has urged members not to abandon our core principal, we just need to be creative in how package our message in a way that will resonate with minorities.

  4. Sigh…our lower-casers are at it again with their tired, uninformed comments. To wit:

    1. When the 1995-2001 Congresses were under GOP control, we did “rein in the spending” since it is the House where all tax bills originate per Article I of the Constitution. However, a little thing called 9/11 necessitated additional spending to protect us. That argument about “setting the agenda” is moot. Safety and security are invaluable.

    2. You are repeating tired Dhimmicrat talking points. Here are the real numbers from the Congressional Budget Office (www.cbo.us.gov):

    The deficit rose to $230 billion in 1985-86, but not because of tax cuts. It was because of unchecked growth in entitlement spending (you know, like what The Snob’s “porkulus” package did).

    Because of unchecked Democrat leadership in the House, each of Reagan’s budgets were pronounced “dead upon arrival.” Plus, if you look at the following years 1987, 1988 and 1989, when economic growth was at its fullest, the deficit fell to $150 billion, even with unchecked spending. It fell because of economic growth that expanded the taxpayer base and, in doing so, increased tax revenue.

    House Speaker Tip O’Neill (D) helped pass a bill which he and the MSM glowingly called a “deficit reduction” measure, which (prior to Clinton’s 1993 hatchet job) was the largest tax increase in history. It actually included $2 of spending cuts for every $1 in increased tax revenue. However, the Dems as is their wont failed to make the budget cuts that they had expressly promised to do as part of the deal.

    (Shocking how things haven’t changed in 20 years with Dhimmicrats failing to keep promises about other people’s money. But I digress.)

    All together now: CHECKMATE.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  5. bob, please read my post before commenting, especially this, “As those who actually read this blog know (as opposed to those who comment to a post after reading its title, skimming its first few lines and drawing from their ideas (usually false) of what Republicans believe).”

    I address the very issue you raise in your comment in the post. (Please see the penultimate paragraph.)

    Whatever the reason, the GOP are finally holding the line on spending. And, as per the post, you’d rather dwell on the past. In past posts (Iinked in the above), I said Republicans deserved the shellacking we go for failing to hold the line on spending.

    We’re in 2009 now. Democrats are in power. They increase spending. You attack GOP for doing so in the past. If it was bad for GOP in the past, wouldn’t it be just as bad for Democrats in present, worse, given the extent of their spending spree?

    Just wondering, bob, did the Democrats fight to rein in spending when they weren’t setting the agenda?

    Gille, do you know which party controlled the House of Representatives for the entirety of the Reagan’s term in office? Reagan tried to hold the line on spending and did succeed in containing the growth of the federal government, but couldn’t cut as much as he would have liked because Congressional Democrats held the purse strings.

  6. unfortunately for me, i read your entire post. those are thirty seconds of my life i’ll never get back.

    my point, GPW, is that it is disingenuous to imply that republicans have suddenly seen the light, and that their actions are anything more than political expediency.

    and if you knew anything about economics (your posts show that you do not), spending is what the government needs to do when the economy is in the tank. when monetary policy fails to stimulate demand (the interest rates are near zero), and consumers stop spending due to job losses and fear for the future, the only part of the equation left to spend is government.

  7. What Democrats like boob are arguing is that the “cure” for an economic crisis brought on by massive, reckless private debt accumulation is massive, reckless, public debt accumulation. This is like getting AIDS from buttsecks and trying to cure it by using dirty needles.

    Look at the pork in this beast…

    – $20.0 billion to increase the maximum benefit under…Food Stamps…
    – $18.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy…
    – $20.4 billion for programs administered by the Department of health and Human Services…
    – $17.6 billion for Pell grants…
    – $29.1 billion for other elementary and secondary educational programs…
    – $13.1 billion for other transportation programs
    – $11.2 billion for housing assistance programs administered by HUD
    – $19.5 billion (minimum, could be higher, as per Title XIII) for education grants to states
    – $27.1 billion for increase unemployment benefits
    – $13.3 billion to increase health insurance for unemployed workers
    – $11.1 billion for “Other Unemployment Compensation”
    – $20.2 billion for Medicaid and Medicare incentive payments

    None of that stimulates the economy. It just showers money on Democrat constituency.

    200 top economists have signed an advertisement saying the stimulus won’t work, and public support for the spending package is 42% and falling. The Republicans did the right thing… for once.

  8. 4&5
    I don’t think the Dems had a veto proof majority in the Senate during the ‘80’s

    So though Regean did a great deal of talking on spending, he was either incapable, unwilling or lacked the cajones to stop it.

    Just like GWBush and the Repub Congress

  11. What is disingenuous is for conservatives to criticize the only viable vehicle for their agenda during a campaign (to the point of staying home on election day) only to praise it when out of power. This is ‘permanent minority’ thinking, straight from Stockholm — we are only at our best as gadflies, Cassandras, and abused wives except that we fancy ourselves the batterers. For so many years the GOP has been the naysayer, the alternative opinion asked by the MSM each time a piece of liberal legislation goes just a bit too far (for now) or a cynical Exhibit A for the public consumption that the media appear to be objective.

    If I may extrapolate, our resident e.e. cummings makes a reasonable point: Is this little more than embarrassment of authorship and/or are those remaining in Congress simply the representatives of safe districts? This was an easy vote — a good start, but hardly worthy of lavish praise.

  13. Iggy, it’s like this. Sooner or later, the pendulum is going to swing back. When it swings back, who do we want in charge of the Republican Party? Do we want the Snowe-Specter-McCain crowd in charge? Or do we want the Jindal-DeMint-Kyl wing in charge?

    The GOP has to come up with alternatives, but they aren’t going to come from the Democrat Lite wing of the party. 80% of a crap sandwich is still something I don’t want to eat.

  14. “If massive federal spending were the key to prosperity, West Virginia would be an economic powerhouse.”

    funny, because all the most prosperous states are blue states.

    the red states (mississippi, alabama, WEST VIRGINIA, south dakota, etc.)? not so much

  15. v the k:

    just taking the first thing off your list: – $20.0 billion to increase the maximum benefit under…Food Stamps…

    believe it or not, this is stimulative. all empirical evidence shows that people with the lowest incomes are the most likely to spend a marginal increase income (anyone remember the phrases “marginal propensity to save” and “marg. prop. to spend” from econ101?). this is common sense. if you make a million a year, it’s likely that your income already far exceeds your fixed living expenses, and you put a good chunk of money away every paycheck. getting a $500 check is just a drop in the bucket. if, however, you live paycheck to paycheck and what you make just covers what you have to pay on rent, utilities, etc., that extra check is more likely to get spent right away. but don’t take my word for it, plenty of economic research bears this out.

    therefore, when poor people can get more food stamps to cover some of those groceries (fixed living expenses–we all need to eat), these people are more likely to spend the extra money saved.

  16. Yeah, the deep blue states of California (8.4% unemployment, $48B deficit), Michigan (10.6% unemployment rate), Rhode Island (9.3% unemployment rate) are just going gangbusters, aren’t they, boob? Then, there’s New Jersey and Illinois; one’s a hellhole that people can’t wait to leave and the other has had only one governor in the last 50 years who wasn’t indicted (Republican Jim Edgar).

    But, your idiot talking point still does nothing to refute my thesis: Robert Byrd has poured Federal Spending into West Virginia for 50 years, and it’s still one of the poorest states.

  18. dude, look at the average incomes of blue states versus red states. actually look at any objective measure: divorce rates, crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, illiteracy rates, etc. blue states win every time.

    i agree new jersey is a dump though. 😉

  19. You keep going on and on about the budget. Yet you ignore the elephant in the room that is largely responsible for pushing the budget into deficit – the War in Iraq. For a war that was largely a humanitarian mission, and a violent one at that, it cost too much. Since there was no imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, it wasn’t the most prudent fiscal choice. And instead of paying for it by rolling back the Bush tax cuts, the war was just financed on credit. That’s not conservatism of any kinda – fiscal or foreign policy.

  20. Still, the question is unanswered. If Federal spending is the key to prosperity, how does one explain West Virgnia. And if you’re complaining about illiteracy, maybe you should look at the Chicago Public Schools run by Obama’s buddy, and the new SecEd, Arne Coleman, which achieved a breathtaking 83% illiteracy rate.

    Detroit Michigan is the most liberal city in America. It has had one-party, liberal Democrat rule, for the last forty years. It should be a shining example of the success of liberalism. Instead, it’s mayor is in jail, unemployment is at depression era levels, and the school system is in receivership.

    Great liberal Democrat success story. Everybody applaud.

    California, meanwhile, has been in a rapid state of decline ever since it went blue. And 50% of all net job creation in the last eight years took place in the red, no-income-tax, state of Texas.

  21. #19 – “Detroit Michigan is the most liberal city in America.”

    V, I was under the impression it was New Orleans. No wonder Bush, Cheney and Rove blew up the levees to punish those wicked evildoers!

    And the evil Republicans held up the buses so that the poor innocent inner-city victims who could not escape to safety without governmental assistance!

    Oh, wait – it was actually because the mayor (D) and governor (D) didn’t have an emergency action into place. And that they waited until the storm was upon them to ask for help – totally forgetting that they had waved off federal assistance just a few days prior.

    That’s the truth, and it makes more sense than the first paragraph. Yet certain lower-casers on this blog (who know who they are) would swear by the first paragraph.

    Ah, Louisiana – as we Texans say, “half of it is underwater, the other half is under indictment.” 😉

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  22. bob, if reading my posts are “thirty seconds” you’ll “never get back, why do you keep coming back to our blog?

    What is it disingenuous to imply that Republicans have seen the light? I’ve been trying to get them to see it for as long as I’ve been blogging. Is it disingenuous to praise someone for finally doing what you’ve been begging him to do?

    And heck, I wouldn’t mind if it were political expediency as long as they stand for Reagent principles.

    Bob, ER, excuse me, bob, so spending is what gov’t needs to do when economy is in the tank? Hmmm . . . . seems we’ve been reading different economic text books and studying different history. With an increasing regulatory burden and high corporate tax rates, it’s no wonder the economy’s in the tank.

    If government spending works, then we should be in boom times now, just go look at how domestic spending increased under Bush and Congresses Republican and Democrat, something you yourself acknowledge.

    Oh, and bob, so you’re saying the most prosperous states are blue states, you mean, like Michigan, California, New York and New Jersey? Last I heard Texas was faring better than most states and it doesn’t look very blue to me.

  23. you’re confusing “liberal” with “democrat.” the most conservative chunk of the democratic party, at least on social issues, is the african americans (please see prop 8 exit polls). detroit is something like 80% black.

  26. but, bob, per capita income doesn’t tell the whole story. Look at unemployment rates, cost of living, etc. And wonder why those blue states are shedding jobs at a far more rapid pace than red states.

    And look at migration patterns. People are fleeing those blue states, even California, not just for sunnier climes, but for less burdensome tax and regulatory systems which they tend to find in redder states.

  27. From #21 — “you’re confusing “liberal” with “democrat” the most conservative chunk of the democratic party, at least on social issues, is the african americans (please see prop 8 exit polls). detroit is something like 80% black.”

    So Bob is saying that the reason Detroit is an economic basket case is because it is run by conservative African-Americans. This is at once staggeringly delusional… and predictably racist…

  30. GPW — actually per capita income would reflect the unemployment levels. people earning no income would be included in the averages, bringing down the per capita income. the blue states still win despite having modestly higher unemployment levels.

    and part of the reason ppl migrate away from expensive blue states is b/c they’re looking for a lower cost of living, not b/c of tax policies. but if you think the migration patterns are in your favor, you haven’t looked at a map lately.

  31. bob, go check the unemployment data for those blue states, ok?

    And check and see the states people are fleeing, many of them have high tax rates.

    So, if they’re fleeing to states with lower cost of living, as you say, then I guess you comment above about higher per capita income as a sign of economic health is thus rendered moot.

  32. that’s some twisted logic there, GPW. there is some migration out of expensive states, yes. there is also migration to blue states. i already know the unemployment rates and explained how that’s already accounted for in calculations of per capita income. try to keep up.

    another quick thing to note. a correlation does not equal a causation. people leaving a state that also happens to have higher taxes doesn’t necessarily mean people are leaving for that reason.

    it’s indisputable that the best talent from the country’s (and the world’s) top universities flock in huge numbers to places like nyc, boston, san francisco, chicago, los angeles, etc. they don’t go to tulsa (no offense, tulsa, i’m sure you’re a great town).

  33. bob, keep up? Your logic is so twisted. Are you saying the price of higher per capita income is higher unemployment?

    It’s you who need keeping up. is there migration to blue states? Oh? Please provide the data. That’s news to me.

    And please note while you may think it’s a waste of time to spend thirty seconds reading a post you show no knowledge of understanding, I don’t spend much time dealing with your comments. More than anything they amuse me.

    You have yet to provide any evidence from history that increased government spending during an economic downturn will increase economic activity. And you try to twist the economic data from blue states to make your point.

    If big government worked, then more corporations would be setting up shop in California, New York & etc. rather than looking elsewhere to base their operations.

  34. no, i’m saying that, considering the net effect of higher unemployment in blue states, the blue states are STILL more affluent and perform better on any objective metric that measures the success of a state. put another way, i don’t really care if massachusetts has a higher unemployment rate than mississippi…massachusetts is still a much better place to live by any objective standard. hmmm i wonder how they compare in poverty rates…

    blue states also tend to be places ppl actually want to live. basic supply and demand tells us why apartments in manhattan, for example, are just a SMIDGE more costly than apartments in little rock. some companies may set up operations in the cheaper states because the cost of setting up shop there is much lower (lower rent, lower wages for employees, etc.).

  36. good for you, vk, that’s quite a steal. it doesn’t, however, prove anything.

    nyc certainly is not everyone’s cup of tea. that isn’t the point either. there is no disputing that there is more demand to live there than, say, houston.

  38. Notice how bob has completely dodged this fact brought up by V the K.

    And if you’re complaining about illiteracy, maybe you should look at the Chicago Public Schools run by Obama’s buddy, and the new SecEd, Arne Coleman, which achieved a breathtaking 83% illiteracy rate.

    The reason why Chicago and other blue enclaves are blue is because of this massive teeming underclass that the Obama Party’s welfare policies create — completely dependent on government aid and therefore unable to vote for anything other than an Obama Party member.

  39. Yes, this stinks on ice. But it’s easy to vote against this now that the Republicans have nothing to gain voting for it.

    Uh Oh, this is going to ramble. I’m in a hurry, but here it goes.

    This isn’t just a problem with the party over the last eight years, it started as soon as Newt and Co. booted the Dem’s in 94. It started out well enough on the fiscal side, but the social conservative even then were working to be the main influence in the party.
    By the time the Second Republican revolution came round in 2000, big spenders such as Tom DeLay and Ted Stevens had subverted the fiscal agenda the seeds were sown for failure. The party had lost its way.

    Then for President, we elected a Governor who already had a history of using accounting tricks to increase spending in his state in the 90’s. Yes, he cut taxes during that period, but he allowed spending to increase beyond what the government was taking in, then hid it with budgetary underestimates in social programs suck as Medicaide (it’s the same thing they did with Medicare-D a few years later). And, as Molly Ivans took glee to point out, he had never run a business that was profitable. He really wasn’t all that as far as real life fiscal policy goes,. He did promise to do away with base-line budgeting (which is a BIG reason I voted for him, that, and Al Gore), but, if we would have looked deeper, we would have realized “hey, if this was such a good plan, why didn’t he do this in the State that he governed”? Even Rush was a bit weary of Bush and his Compassionate Conservatism. But many voted for Bush , because (A) he supported traditional values, and (B) he wasn’t Al Gore.

    By 2005 the transformation was complete. The Republican party was no longer the the party of fiscal restraint, but the party of “Family Values”. The Terry Schiavo fiasco was the apex of the transformation.

    My view is that you can’t have the party operating at cross purposes. Take for instance the aid given to Africa. If the anti-abortion provisions were not in the package to sweeten the deal, would it have ever passed? It almost certainly not have passed in 1995. I still hold to my position, that the Republicans will not be the party of fiscal responsibility until it permanently puts the social conservative agenda second to fiscal responsibility.