Back in the 1990s, when I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh when driving back and forth between Charlottesville, Virginia and our nation’s capital or when motoring about within the confines of that city’s Beltway, I recall the talker criticizing the then-incumbent President of the United States for his wayward ways.
Now, he wants to return federal spending the levels of that era? He said as much in praising Ron Paul’s economic plan:
Genuine, big spending cuts are the only thing that is going to bring us back into some semblance of ideas. Now, these aren’t really Ron Paul’s ideas. They are ours. On this program, I myself, El Rushbo, have suggested freezing spending at 2008 levels. In fact, I said, you guys, the Democrats, you’re running around and you’re talking about how great the Clinton years were, let’s freeze, let’s take spending back to that level. You said Clinton produced a boom, let’s go back to those years. Let’s do that. So Paul is stealing that idea. Cutting the EPA, we’ve long been an advocate of this, eliminating whole bureaucracies. But nobody on our side’s ever really seriously proposed it, and Ron Paul’s going to.
Via Joel Gehrke @ the Washington Examiner. Kudos to Paul for going big with his proposal as we need to do given the Augean task facing the next president. (Please note that yours truly has not yet read the plan, so am not endorsing it, just showing appreciation for the bold gesture — and the need for more than just cosmetic cuts in federal spending.)
Looks like he’s offering us the type of “net spending cut” Barack Obama promised in the last campaign.
Vote for Ron Paul
We’d be better off with the national equivalent of Paris Hilton levels of spending in comparison to what Obama (and the last part of the Bush Administration) has done. So Ron Paul, for all his flaws, is certainly capable of coming up with a credible plan to reverse this. But I too see the inconsistency of what Limbaugh says. Then again, back in the 90s, we couldn’t conceive of Obama levels.
Wasn’t Limbaugh’s tongue firmly planted in his cheek? At least that’s how I take it. Seems he was offering up a challenge he knew the democrats would never accept so as to prove them to be liars.
Limbaugh is championing policies in hindsight he criticized while they were happening. That’s what it sounds like.
Richard and Cinesnatch, interesting analysis both of you. Rush may well have been offering up a challenge to the Democrats . . . and he may well be acknowledging that the spending levels of the Clinton era are the best we can aspire to, even in this increasingly anti-government climate.
But, it also suggests that the conservative view on spending is not far removed from Clinton-era policies, created in the tension between a politically savvy Democratic president and a principled Republican Congress. More on this anon.
It’s my understanding that Clinton was considered a centrist. But, it’s also my understanding that pressures from the right and the 1994 Congress left him no other choice. I wonder how many on this site given the choice of Al Gore 2000 or Obama 2008, which option they would go for.
Fairly sure it was tongue in cheek when I heard it yesterday. I believe he also mentioned that it was a Republican Congress at the time.
I took it in all seriousness. Spending is out of control. Dem crow that Clinton gave us a surplus and Bush is the devil. So lets agree and go back to Clinton’s last budget, and start again. Same spending, a few adjustments, and same tax rates. Would be better that what we have now.
Ugh!
Virginia’s governor to the Commonwealth back to the 2006 budget levels and it worked miracles in righting the budget problems. In terms of the national budget some have talked about just going back to 2008 which was the last Bush budget.
Rush suggests going back to (at least) 2000 and the last Clinton budget.
I have not looked up the numbers, but I am darned sure 43 cents of every budget dollar was not borrowed in 2000.
I guess I miss the confusion over what Rush was saying. After all, Clinton at least submitted a budget and a Republican Congress at least approved a budget. That in itself is a worthwhile goal.
Has all of that extra spending really made us a better country? I’d like to see the metrics on that.
I would have done what I did in 2008…. I would have wrote in Paris Hilton!!!!!
(and funny she was mentioned in a comment a few lines up)
Per Cinesnatch: “I wonder how many on this site given the choice of Al Gore 2000 or Obama 2008, which option they would go for.”
My answer: None of the above.
PS – Clinton spending levels in 2000 were the result of a GOP-dominated Congress (both houses), and it wasn’t until the 1994 mid-term election that Clinton triangulated (as per Dick Morris) and embraced fiscal sanity.
Therefore, the so-called “Clinton” spending levels were actually GOP levels.
Regards,
Peter H.
And his approval rating is 69.6%
Almost all the comments seem reasonably close to the mark, but for those unfamiliar with Limbaugh’s way of pointing out absurdity, you probably need to listen more carefully and for longer periods of time.
Even if Limbaugh weren’t being tongue-in-cheek, I don’t see the inconsistency. Government keeps getting bigger over time. So big-government liberalism in the 1990s probably wasn’t nearly as big-spending as big-government liberalism today. As conservatives, Limbaugh and I would want spending to be as low as possible; so Clinton could be far worse than the ideal, but Clinton could still be much better than Obama.
See also C. S. Lewis on when “B is better than C” but “A may be even better than B.”
Of course, what this means is that Limbaugh and the rest of us are fighting a losing battle.
But what would replace the revenue from the tech bubble?