Several people have asked me if now that I am done defending the administration, it means I will not vote for them. Short answer- I don’t know.
I have no misconception that the Democrats (in particular this current crop) would be any better with fiscal issues, yet I refuse to let this administration and Karl Rove treat me the way the Democratic party treats African-American voters. I DO have options. I have a lot in common with moderate to conservative Demorats, and I would probably feel most comfortable in a little L libertarian party, were that a viable option.
The simple fact of the matter is that I voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000, and right now I feel like I have been sold down the river when it comes to this hideous spending. The Farm Bill? The Education Bill? Medicare prescription drug plan? Marriage Promotion? Drug Testing in Schools? Faith Based Initiatives?
You know, when Bill Clinton pandered, he at least had the decency to be straight forward about it. And, I might add, Bill Clinton, despite what you may think his role was in the process, did sign a balanced budget at the end of the day. Chew on that, Mr. Delay.
Oliver
I knew you would make sense some day. :)
Gary Farber
” have no misconception that the Democrats (in particular this current crop) would be any better with fiscal issues…”
“And, I might add, Bill Clinton, despite what you may think his role was in the process, did sign a balanced budget at the end of the day.”
More than that. As you well know, put the budget into surplus, and reduced the national debt. And held growth in spending and growth in government to vastly smaller amounts than President Bush 32.
Obviously none of us can know what any of the current Democratic nominees would do in the White House, but it’s clearly as impossible to know they would do worse than Bush as it is to be absolutely sure they would do better.
Terry
Get over it! By virtually all measures, today’s projected deficits are the equivalent of about one-half of those experienced during the Reagan era. Our economy has grown enormously since that earlier period, and while the level of these current deficits is disturbing, it needs to be placed in perspective.
Keith Edge
As a fiscal conservative, this administrations reckless spending is truly enraging. having said that, it’s not enough to make me vote for any of the Democrats:
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=549&org_name=NTUF
you’ve all probably seen that, since I got the link from Sully, but I felt it needed reposting.
keith edge
eh, cut and paste, I guess.
Bains
If I read Gary right, then a Dem could and would do better than our current President. I disagree. Certainly he (now that Carol has dropped out), he could do better
Brian J.
I have three people who have to answer to me about spending the money.
Senator Christopher Bond
Senator Jim Talent
Representative Todd Aiken
I have to tell those fellows that they, and their friends, better tone it down if they want to retain the presidency for the Republicans.
M. Scott Eiland
“And, I might add, Bill Clinton, despite what you may think his role was in the process, did sign a balanced budget at the end of the day.”
More like he was dragged kicking and screaming to it–remember how he acted as if a budget agreement in 1996 designed to balance the budget in seven years would be an unprecedented catastrophe to the Republic?–it took months before he signed off on the deal (which turned out to be moot). Clinton balanced the budget because there were piles of money coming in that the Republicans in Congress wouldn’t let him spend–that certainly wouldn’t be the case if Republicans hand the White House and Congress back to the Democrats by staying away from the polls.
tbrosz
If you want to know where a lot of the Clinton surplus came from, check out the article on capital gains taxes here. Driven by the exploding stock market, capital gains taxes went from 27 to 121 billion between 1992 and 2000.
Neil Sinhababu
Also remember that Clinton raised taxes on the rich in 1992. That helped.
I don’t buy the story about the GOP congress having any major effect. Remember that the deficit topped out in 1992 at $290 billion. Every year after that, there was steady deficit reduction. By the time that the GOP congress appeared in ’04, the deficit was down to $200 billion.
Neil Sinhababu
oops, that should have been “raised taxes on the rich in 1993”
Neil Sinhababu
and “appeared in ’95”
I need to go to sleep and stop obsessing about New Hampshire.
Charlie
CBS says the budget will balance out naturally in 2014.
Misanthropyst
Thanks for articulating my dilemma. I’ve voted Republican for 20+ years, but I don’t know how I’m going to continue to do so.
Hipocrite
When tbrosz argues that the surplus was created by a $100BN increase in capital gains taxes, he neglects to mention that the 2000 surplus was $230BN, which is $130BN higher than the increase in capital gains taxes.
Emperor Misha I
Well, there’s always the option of refusing to vote for President spendthrift and, at the same time, voting as many REAL Republicans into Congress as possible.
Checks and balances, you know.
Gregory Litchfield
I agree that Bush’s abandonment of fiscal solvency, small-government conservatism and states rights is maddening. Frankly, I’m considering voting Libertarian.
Yet none of the Dem. candidates seems at all serious when it comes to terrorism. As far as I can tell, all the front runners (Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark) view terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. I have yet to hear any of the major candidates offer any substantive criticisms of Bush’s handling of the war of terrorism. I hear a lot of, “The War in Iraq distracted the US from fighting Al Qaeda,” which is utter BS. We have more Spec. Ops operators in Afghanistan now than we do in Iraq, and our heavy divisions weren’t going to be needed in Central Asia for operations there.
If the Dem candidate, whoever it may be, decides to run on a platform which assumes that terrorism is a law-enforcement issue, I will be voting for GWB in a heartbeat.
CadillaqJaq
I can’t suppply the link to a recent post but it has been in print that all of the current Dem candidates spending programs would put us in further deficet. Face it, ALL politicians are spenders, regardless of party. As far as Bill Clinton, his “fiscal expertise” didn’t take place in his first two years with a Dem House and Senate. Think about that for a minute.
Further, if you want the UN (read: France, Germany, Russia) to be the governing factor on terrorism and in our international affairs, vote for John “F-word” Kerry etal.
Not me, I’ll take a risk on GWB for 4 more years.
Karen
I agree with you totally, Gregory. As for the spending, what I hear from the Dem candidates is (1) raise taxes and (2) spend more. Education spending has increased 67% under Bush yet they persist in saying the No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded and they will increase spending even more. The tremendously expensive new Medicare expansion is not expansive enough. Homeland security is inadequate and needs to be increased. Free healthcare and a job for everyone! And all this can be accomplished by raising taxes on the “rich” and giving the “middle class” a tax break. Oh, and, of course, cutting the defense budget as we won’t be pursuing the WOT quite so aggressively.
The only hope is with a Dem president and a Rep Congress spending will be controlled by the natural push and shove of politics. I am, however, not willing to stake American lives on this hope.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Like the tax cut he rammed through in 1993 without one Republican vote? The one they said would ruin the economy? Some ruin.
Grego
“If you want to know where a lot of the Clinton surplus came from, check out the article on capital gains taxes here. Driven by the exploding stock market, capital gains taxes went from 27 to 121 billion between 1992 and 2000.”
You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot with your argument. By this reasoning capital gains taxes and other taxes on the wealthy would be the way to get back to a surplus again.
Gregory Litchfield
Karen – Excellent point. Why bother voting for Dems. whose solution to our current budgetary woes is to raise taxes, while not even considering cutting services or the growth of the public sector? If we try to register our displeasure with Bush by not voting, we will probably wind up with John Kerry, who appears to be a big fan of the Ted Kennedy school of fiscal policy.
Essentially, I need a true fiscal conservative, who is socially moderate, or at least committed to the ideal that the government has no right to regulate consentual, private behavior.
So, should I not vote Bush, I guess my write in candidate will be Arnold Schwartzenneger. To bad he can never be President.
Hucklebuck
While I agree wholeheartedly with your points about domestic spending, you are overlooking the issue that trumps all others: the war on terror. While you may postulate that a Dem might do better on the spending side, a concept which I find laughable, there is no doubt of exactly what we would get on the big issue: each of the current crop of putative candidtates as sworn, to one degree or another, to drop the whole thing. Even Ed Koch can see that this consideration overrides all others. The question we on the right must ask ourselves is do we want to encourage a protest against domestic spending which might cost our country the war? Are we willing to trade our security for a hoped for, but unlikely, reduction in the farm bill? The mistake the Left has made since 9/11 is think that this is just a political issue, with points to be scored or lost, by both sides. We need to rise above that and base our votes on the reality that we are at war. All other considerations are secondary to our lives and safety.
Person of Choler
Lose the terror war and a balanced budget doesn’t mean much. Why should we trust Democrats to even fight that war, let alone win it?
Ralph Gizzip
What good does a balance budget do if our women are stuck inside the house wearing burkhas?
As bad as GWB may be on gov’t spending he’s better than ANY of the Democrat candidates and so much better against the Islamofanatics that voting for GWB this year is a not even in question.
Answer this question: Who would Osama bin Laden want to see as President of the US? (answer: It AIN’T Dubya!)
Zach
I have a problem similar to you: I’m liberal, but dislike the Democratic establishment. It sucks not having another choice in this country. Of course, being a liberal in Virginia, my vote doesn’t matter that much anyway. I usually vote for a third-party candidate just to voice my displeasure.
Trump
Look, I’m getting sick of the moaning from conservatives about spending. Enough already. I’m a conservative also, and I despise the over spending, but it’s simply a matter of what is important to you.
IF what is most valuable principle wise to you is balancing the budget and shrinking govt, then please go join the libertarian party or some other group, put your votes and efforts into that. If your most valuable principles are the war on terror or getting conservative thinkers on federal and SUPREME courts, then your choice is clear. Especially the Supreme court- the next Pres will probably get to appoint 1. Maybe more. Do you want KERRY to be doing it?
You’re not going to get a canidate who gives you everything you want. Not anymore. Maybe not ever again. Shameful? Yes. Disgraceful? Also yes. But it’s simply a matter of figuring out what is most important to you and voting that way. If Pres. Bush keeps conducting the war on terror the way he is, and can be counted on to nominate conservative thinkers for the SCOTUS, he gets my vote, we’ll deal with the spending issue later. Or EVEN better- you want to really send a message about spending? Target a few Rep. Senators who voted for the increases. That way you’re sending your message AND not throwing the country away by taking votes away from Bush.
tbrosz
Grego says I am shooting myself in the foot, and that if I am right, a capital gains tax increase would be a good idea.
Bill Clinton passed a capital gains tax cut in 1997. Go back to the original document I referenced, and look at where revenues went. Then sit down and think about that for a while.
Ken Hahn
The only ones who can convince me to vote for Bush are the Democrats. And they ae doing an excellent job of it. I’ll defend that which Bush does right and complain about that which he messes up. Just remember that fiscally responsible Democrat is a oxymoron.
CadillaqJaq
To Andrew J. Lazarus: “Rammed through” is exactly what it was. You’re right, no Republican voted for it, and ALL of the Dems didn’t either… it took VP Algor’s tie breaker to get it passed.
But I guess that you, by applauding Clinton’s “Middle Class Tax Cut” (I’m still wating for mine BTW…) are one of the few left on the planet that espouses taxing us into prosperity. JFK, RWR, and now GWB have shown that federal tax CUTS are a far better way.
Now, what do you say about the incessant spending by both parties?
Andrew J. Lazarus
Why not? You think OBL gives a crap whether Saddam is alive? You think OBL doesn’t appreciate Bush’s maladroit “crusader” references and the non-trivial possiblity of reclaiming parts of Afghanistan as working space? Of civil war in Iraq?
Oh, right, OBL will be thwarted because the Homeland Security personnel aren’t in a union. I forgot.
(As to all you many posters who don’t think a Democrat can be fiscally responsible in the White House, you’re as out of touch with reality as I would be if I claimed a Democrat would never let an intern fellate him in the White House. If something happened, you look stupid saying it is impossible.)
HH
Bush spends way, way too much and I agree with you wholeheartedly that it’s absurd… but that doesn’t mean that the false attacks of “deserter,” “Nazi,” “liar,” etc. that are spewed by his opponents just about every hour on the hour are right. Call ’em as you see ’em.
TM Lutas
Whichever way things go, there need to be more than paper thin margins in the Congress. That’s the fundamental problem. If everybody is the deciding vote, everybody can blackmail leadership into letting in their district pork. If you can afford to lose a few votes because they’re not essential, you can maintain a better line on spending.
Bush’s problem is that he’s getting rolled by people in both parties in order to get his legislative changes through. Given the tight margins in Congress, the number of changes that have happened on GWB’s watch is truly amazing.
We’ve been talking about a prescription drug benefit since the 80s. Now instead of paying $80k for expensive heart surgery through Medicare, we can medically manage the problem for $700 a year with pills. People are counting the increase in govt. funded pill costs but not counting on any reductions in surgeries that we were already on the hook for. That’s just daft.
We’ve been yelling about poor school performance since the ’70s. Now we’ve got testing and rating schools so we know exactly how bad things are. That’s eventually going to make NEA resistance to vouchers a loser and we’ll have school choice. We got a lot of speeches for decades but it happened now.
The tax cuts were supposed to be dead on arrival. Instead he got two rounds through, the biggest tax reduction since Reagan.
The time to get mad at the red ink and to make Republicans pay is if they fatten their Congressional margins and still spend like drunken sailors. 2006 is the year to judge that, not now.
Gary Farber
“If I read Gary right, then a Dem could and would do better than our current President.”
I suggest you try rereading, more slowly, since that’s not what I wrote.
“Obviously none of us can know what any of the current Democratic nominees would do in the White House, but it’s clearly as impossible to know they would do worse than Bush as it is to be absolutely sure they would do better.”
How do you get from the above, which is what I wrote, to an insistance that a Democrat “would” do better? Is there something difficult to understand about “impossible to know”?
I’ll try rephrasing, slowly. In short phrases.
A Democrat. Might do worse than Bush. Might do better. We can’t know. But Democrats have done better than Bush. So they might again. We don’t know. But it’s possible.
LowLife
It’s very likely that a Dem will do better than Bush since Bush has done so poorly. He set the bar very high for doing bad. If Kerry tries to do worse, he will probably fall short. I’m trying not to be partisen here. I’m just saying that if Bush’s preformance was average then we could say that his successor is just as likely to do worse as do better. Since he sucks, his successor, whether Kerry or John McCain, is likely to do better.
I agree that Clinton had nothing to do with anything good, ever. He was just lucky. Let’s see if some of that Clinton luck rubs off on John Kerry.
bill
On May 11, 2004, John Kerry failed to show up to vote in the senate to extend unemployment benefits to hundreds of thousands of people out of work because of President Bush’s foolish economic, tax and trade policies. This bill failed to pass by ONLY ONE VOTE!