Don't Call Republicans For Fiscal Responsibility
The most common defense Republicans had on the financial responsibility issue was that things went well in the Clinton era because "the GOP was in charge of congress". Well, they're in charge of everything at the moment, and what do we have? Federal discretionary spending growth of 12.5%. Excluding "one-time" charges (I use quotes because there isn't anybody left who thinks that Iraq and our other little wars are going to be one-time), the growth in spending is still 7.9%.
Compare that figure to an average, under Clinton, of 2.4% per year.
So what is going on?
Clearly the GOP is losing the ability to call themselves fiscally conservative. They're not; clearly they are rather incredibly financially irresponsible. Bush's platitudes about reining in the cost of government were either campaign BS, or he just doesn't have a clue about how to do it.
Here's my hint...bring Clinton back in. He managed to turn everything around once before, and chances are he can do it again.
The most likely effect of this is that the GOP will become even more stridently socially conservative, and will begin to break down the wallsl of tolerance that have existed. With numbers like these, and their credibility being destroyed in virtually every direction, the only way they can hang on to power is by using the mechanisms of fear.
To do that they need to create divisions in the population, reward one side, then malign, punish, or silence the other side. They need to create a series of national litmus tests; where "real" citizens pass, and others don't. Pick your issue: Abortion, Patriotism, Tax Breaks...all of these are being used to create divisions and generate support. It has become clear to me that the cynicism and/or incompetence of those in power is approaching critical levels.
[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28252-2003Nov11?language=printer]Government Outgrows Cap Set by President[/url]
on
| § 3
§ 3 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Damn you Ross! I was just
Damn you Ross! I was just about to post on this selfsame topic. Maybe I should anyway, just to continue my trend of double-posting on stories others have already done.
I disagree with you on two
I disagree with you on two fronts. First, I'd rather vote for a yellow dog than for Clinton. Does that make me a yellow-dog centrist?
Second, I remain unconvinced that presidents can do much to dependably shift the economy one way or another, although such meddling is more likely to screw things up than to improve matters. I'm not sure that Clinton should get the credit for the 90's boom, especially since many of the indicators had been rising since the early 80's, once the economy shrugged off the stagflation of the late 70's. I'm not sure that Reagan deserves much credit for [em]that[/em] boom, either. Ditto Bush and the current (non?)recovery. The US market is too lumpy, noisy, and huge to be steered, although nudging is not out of the question.
Then again, I'm neither an economist nor particularly erudite on economics, so what the fuck do I know?
As for the rest of your post, right on brother!
There is little that a
There is little that a president can do to help a healthy economy. But there are many things that the government can do to screw it up. Wage and price controls in the seventies really screwed things up. Reagan helped the economy by removing them, as well as other measures; and that corrected the harm done earlier by Nixon and Carter. Bush Sr. and Clinton merely presided over the economy, not effecting it too much either way.