Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) declared a return to âthe era of big governmentâ the day after President Obamaâs first formal address to Congress.
And what did we have the day and the week and the year and the decade before Obama's address? Ah yes, I remember. The Milton Friedman inspired laissez-faire world of free market capitalism and a limited Jeffersonian state.
I almost feel sorry for the Republicans. They know what their role is supposed to be. Having failed to inhabit the role for the last eight years (and a lot longer) they don't realize how silly they look slipping into the same old costume. It's like a fat man trying to do an ad for a weight loss regimen. It doesn't sell that well.
Share
{ 27 comments }
So, this is true – Krugman actually is an economist… I guess he's gotten to be pretty good at hiding it…
sorry, wrong article….
I've given up feeling sorry for them. Their policy recommendations are essentially the opposite side of the same coin as the Dems. Their supposed coalition between values voters and economic libertarians makes no sense. The two camps aren't orthogonal like Dem constituencies. They're polar opposites.
Just read this article. Where the editor says Boehner "chocked it up to", where I believe she means "chalked it up to".
Russ –
Well somebody has to pick up the sullied banner. We may as well back the only team on the field that will run a free market playbook. That does not mean they will, but the hope that the Democrats will is somewhere between nil and zero.
Keep in mind, however, that the Republicans that remain in Congress tend to be the more conservative variety on economic issues. The moderates all lost. It was the moderates that tended to be the most prolific spenders. The hypocrisy is real, but not as deep as you might think. Those that survived the bloodbath are vastly more small government than those that lost.
The Republicans that remain are at least the most stalwart to the libertarian economic vision.
Arnie California Republicans they are not, nor have they been.
I would disagree slightly on the GOP spending lapses up to 2000. The GOP did a good job at pushing fiscal responsibility on the Clinton Administration. They deserve a fair amount of credit for the balanced budgets in the late 1990s. A liberal Congress would have spent it in a heartbeat, and I think we know that.
They did shut down the government to force fiscal discipline in the 1990s, although it may have contributed to Clinton's successful re-election bid.
Once GWB was elected, they lost their way. No doubt about it.
BoscoH -
I think the Republican coalition is damaged because so many conservatives abandoned the party. Obama won a healthy % of conservatives.
Had conservatives voted in the same skew as Liberals voted for Obama, McCain would have won.
If you look at the exit polls, it bears this out. Obama won by peeling off conservatives.
I disagree that values voters and fiscal conservatives are mutually exclusive. Most values voters also loathe government secular attitudes.
There is a high correlation between values voters and economic conservatism because values voters believe the family is the most worthwhile social unit. They loathe the government inserting itself into familial responsibilities.
As for the Democratic coalition, I think it is more fragmented than you think. Big labor tends to not like affirmative action, for example. I can't imagine that gay marriage gets a lot of ringing endorsement in union halls. Let's be honest about that.
The blue dog Democrats have grown tremendously in number and if they every voted with Republicans, they would number 260 votes.
Obama's mandate and popularity only creates the guise of a cohesive coalition.
Once the failures of Obama's economic plan become apparent, I think you will see just how little unites many democrat coalitions.
Some context is worth noting…
In 2007, the deficit was 1.2% of GDP. In 2008 the budget deficit was projected to be about $160 Billion. Discretionary spending was flat in the last 2 years, until that stupid farm bill came along.
Bush was too politically weak to veto it, and it would have guaranteed a loss in Iowa and some other swing states for the GOP.
In 2009 it will be 10%.
There is big government…
and then there is BIGGGG GOVERNMENT!
I think the distinction is pretty darn noteworthy.
If the GOP would have blocked he stupid bailout, this might not be happening.
A lot of GOP Congressmen were dragged kicking and screaming to vote for it. If McCain had not backed it, the GOP would have shot it down. Once he did, they were stuck.
Matt on Feb 26, 2009 @ 2:30:45 AM
"I think the Republican coalition is damaged because so many conservatives abandoned the party. Obama won a healthy % of conservatives."
Is there some other type of conservative other than social and fiscal?
Those so call conservatives that voted for GWB, the 'Compassionate Conservatives' turned out to be wolves in sheep's clothing.
These phonies are nothing more than the new liberal menace looking to root itself into the America fabric.
What was the deficit as a percent of GDP when Bush came in?
T L -
Let's also be honest about the Clinton surplus. It was something of a mirage inflated by an asset bubble.
The relative reduction in spending was all in defense. Non-defense spending grew at the same rate under Clinton as under Bush.
80-90% of Bush's entire deficit was defense related spending growth. Without 9/11 we would have had something close to balanced budgets. The NIPA GDP tables bear this out.
At least defense is a legitimate role for Government action.
Now this is the point where berating Iraq starts. Fine. Promise me you were not in the 75% of Americans who supported the initial decisionto invade and you will have a point.
My view of "compassionate conservatism" is that it should be getting to government to stop subsidizing and incentivizing people to make stupid decisions.
Like buying a really big house the can't afford.
Like going to college when you have no business bring college and should be in vo-tech training instad.
Like having more children, but only as long as you cannot afford to take care of them.
I could go on.
Sorry for typos, using an iPhone!
I could go on.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 26, 2009 8:56:08 AM
You did.
Promise me you were not in the 75% of Americans who supported the initial decision to invade and you will have a point.
I promise you.
I was also in whatever percentage that did not buy any of the fabricated justifications for invading Iraq.
Should I excuse those that did?
You're cherry-picking your statistics. For example, you gloss over Medicare Part D, or the fact that Bush expanded discretionary non-military spending by more than any president since LBJ. In practice "compassionate conservatism" turned out to mean "we will compete with the Democrats at handing out goodies to buy your votes." Add to that the inept foreign policy, cronyism, anti-liberty security agenda, and religious nut-jobbery, and you can see why so many moderate conservatives and libertarians defected in 2008. If we're going to get big government no matter what, we might as well at least get it without all that other baggage. Until the Republicans take this lesson to heart, they will remain in the wilderness.
Hey Russ,
While I share your frustration with the GOP's prior fiscal recklessness, I think their move to regain a more responsible position should be applauded and not be derided! Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican. I did not vote for him but wish I did because he is one of the only politicians that seems to understand free market economics and maybe he could influence the GOP to adopt Austrian School ideas. It looked bleak for the Americans at Valley Forge but Gen. George Washington rallied the troops and made history! People like you, Don Boudeaux and many others are the oracles of our time, as it pertains to economic matters.I find that Cafe Hayek is very conducive to intellectual exchange and appreciate the service you and your colleagues provide. Services like Cafe Hayek help me understand what's going on with the economy and gives me reason to have optimism that common sense will prevail. Also,I hope you fell better soon!
"Let's also be honest about the Clinton surplus. It was something of a mirage inflated by an asset bubble."
Let's be even more honest than that. Let's take a look at TOTAL government debt over that period and find a time when it went DOWN. Then we can claim there was any REAL surplus.
It was an accounting shell game, clever word usage and semantic trickery.
I clicked on to your sitewhen I saw the word , "onion". I write a lot about politics on my blog site and coupla weeks ago, wrote a lengthy article I titled, "Onion Politics"
With reference to any difference in Demos and republicans, if you put them in a paper bag and shook it up, no way of telling which would fall out first.
Thanks
Anne Cleveland
Octogenariansblog.com
I'm a Republican. One who voted both for John McCain, and for our US Senator Gordon Smith. And for the first time in my life, I think I'm glad both of these candidates lost.
I do believe that President Bush attempted to achieve his first priority for the presidency: to change the tone of Washington. He told us that he was going to practice something called "compassionate conservatism." And he did.
But he failed to use the whip smartly when it came to Social Security reform, and the reform of Freddie and Fannie. Too often I think we confuse Social Conservatism with Fiscal Conservatism. The impulse to be a do-gooder is too strong for some. Especially when they can bathe in the light of adulation for good-doing.
But I can only imagine the confusion of a McCain presidency. Swift's "Trimmer" comes to mind. For those of us who own our own businesses, we are quite aware of the need to actually lead. It's our money on the line.
Dithering and consensus building. Not a way to lead. And working to change the tone? Now that was a unicorn. Remember what the Democrats did to Sherman Adams? A succession of Republicans? Politics is a game of winners and losers. And too often Republicans show up to the knife fight with a knife.
.
Matt, good comments. By the way, Bush did veto the farm bill, but his veto was overridden by the Democratic congress (with the support of some left-wing Republicans).
This view IMHO doesn't accurately reflect the last 8 years. Yes, as a libertarian I'm fully opposed to Medicare Plan D but Democrats requested an even larger program – and McCain voted against it by the way, while Obama voted for it. And I'm far more interested in federal debt as a percentage of GDP, than in absolute figures. The classical liberal Heritage Foundation writes:
In 2008, America's $5.4 trillion public debt represents 38 percent of its $14.3 trillion GDP. Despite all the hand-wringing over increased budget deficits, the 38 percent debt ratio is below the post-World War II average of 43 percent. Consequently, America's debt burden is, in fact, low by historical standards. During World War II, The debt ratio surged from 40 percent to 109 percent, indicating that the nation's debt was larger than its annual GDP. The debt ratio fell back to 45 percent by 1960, and has since remained between 24 percent (in 1974) and 49 percent (in 1994).
There is no mystery to why the debt ratio has dropped so much since World War II: Economic growth has dwarfed the rate of new debt issuance. Since 1946, inflation-adjusted debt has grown by 114 percent, but the economy has grown by 532 percentânearly five times as rapidly. Just as a family with rising income can afford to buy a more expensive home and accept more mortgage debt, the growing American economy has been able to absorb its new debt.
More recent debt ratio declines were also heavily influenced by economic growth. Since the debt ratio's recent 1994 peak, the public debt has expanded by 5 percent while the economy has grown by 40 percent. This has reduced the debt burden from 49 percent to 38 percent. In fact, the current 38 percent debt ratio is below the ratio at any point during the 1990s. Thus, it is not surprising that recent budget deficits have not devastated the economy. As long as lawmakers promote pro-growth policies, modest debt is manageable.
http://www.heritage.org/RESEARCH/BUDGET/bg2178.cfm
Better a hypocritical free marketer than a sincere socialist.
"Better a hypocritical free marketer than a sincere socialist."
How is that better? The result seems pretty much the same…
That's an interesting, and somewhat comforting, post, Libertarian. But I really don't think the percentage figure is necessarily "good" just because it is stable. What matters with any debt is whether it is leverage or just plain debt. My opinion is that most of the government's debt is the latter. What do we have to show for any of it? Is poverty ended? Is the war on drugs a success? Is the transportation system complete? Is the world finally safe for democracy? No
to all. Its just debt.
"Better a hypocritical free marketer than a sincere socialist."
How is that better? The result seems pretty much the same…
It's worse, for then "free markets" become perceptually stained.
"Better a hypocritical free marketer than a sincere socialist."
How is that better? The result seems pretty much the same…
It's worse, for then "free markets" become perceptually stained.
Very true, Sam.