BCT Editorial – 5/15/06

This page was last updated on May 21, 2006.

Fiscal lushes; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 15, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The American people must send congressional Republicans into rehab before their addiction to tax cuts and spending sprees bankrupts the nation.”

[RWC] While I believe we’re spending way too much, the only recent “spending spree” was the Medicare prescription drug plan. Ignoring that – and that’s hard to do for a conservative, when you look at non-security “discretionary” spending, President Bush has cut spending increases every year. In President Clinton’s last year, this category increased 15%. In President Bush’s first five budgets, this category increased 6%, 5%, 4%, 1%, and decreased 1% in the 2006 budget. Slowing the rate of increase isn’t the goal, but it’s a start.

“Last week, the GOP-controlled Congress passed a bill that doles out $70 billion in tax cuts over the next five years. Never mind that the federal budget is swimming in red ink. Never mind that congressional Republicans have shown over the last six years that they can’t curtail their spending sprees as a way of offsetting the revenue that is lost because of the tax cuts. Never mind that their deficit spending is going to leave future generations of Americans with a massive fiscal hangover.”

[RWC] First, if you believe the GOP controls Congress, you’re not paying attention. Being in the majority alone doesn’t put you in control. In addition to being in the majority, you need leaders who know how to lead. Those leaders do not exist for the GOP in Congress.

Second, Congress did not pass “a bill that doles out $70 billion in tax cuts over the next five years.” The bill merely temporarily extended existing tax rates.

Third, no revenue was “lost because of the tax cuts.” If you’ve been paying close attention to the news – and I mean real close because most of the mainstream media isn’t reporting it, you know tax collections are higher than projected and there have been at least two revisions downward of the deficit. The tax cuts are responsible for the increased collections because they encouraged greater overall economic activity. Liberals like the editorial author don’t seem to understand economics.

Fourth, what spending cuts have Democrats recommended? Unless I’m mistaken, Democrats have opposed every spending cut proposed by Republicans and proposed no cuts of their own. A Times editorial from earlier this year gave us just one example of this behavior.

Fifth, if you believe tax increases will cut the deficit, I have a bridge to sell you. It’s not like we don’t already pay too much. For 2006, The Tax Foundation reports Pennsylvanians worked for the government for nearly five months, from January 1^st to April 24^th (114 days or 31% of the year). That’s more than we work for any other single expenditure. The second highest expenditure is for housing at about 62 days. For comparison, our ancestors worked for the government for only 22 days in 1900.

“No, none of that matters to them as they squander the nation’s riches to feed their addiction to power and money.”

[RWC] “The nation’s riches?” This tells a lot about the author and his view of the world. Tax dollars are not “the nation’s riches.” Tax dollars are the property of us individuals.

“Since they gained control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government in 2000, Republicans have shown all the self-control of an alcoholic who has been let loose in a warehouse full of top-shelf Kentucky bourbon.

“These fiscal lushes are drowning in the stuff, gulping it down at prodigious rates.”

[RWC] As noted at the beginning, President Bush has cut spending increases every year. As a percent of GDP, spending during the Bush (19.85%) and Clinton (19.55%) administrations was nearly identical. Also, the CBO reports the deficit as a percent of GDP is lower than it was during the 1980s and early 1990s. I don’t approve, but I believe we need to put it context to unmask the editorial’s hyperbole.

Keep in mind the vast majority of the spending is on programs supported by the Times. The only program the Times says it opposes is the Medicare prescription drug program. That’s a bogus assertion, however, because Times editorials have supported taxpayer financed universal healthcare.

“Unfortunately, they’re taking the rest of the nation with them.

“Come November, put aside politics and ideology and focus on the massive amount of debt their spending and tax-cutting sprees are having on our children and our grandchildren. Their way of life will be diminished because of the massive amount of debt today’s borrow-and-spend Republicans are dumping on them.”

[RWC] “Put aside politics?” Is the author kidding? This entire editorial is a political rant complete with name-calling.

Current debt as a percent of GDP is lower than it was for all but one year of the 1990s. Again, I oppose deficit spending, but I felt it necessary to address the hyperbole in this editorial.

“If they won’t go voluntarily into rehab, send them there by voting them out of power. Six years of enabling their fiscal drunkenness is enough. It’s time for responsible adults in this nation to reassert control.”

[RWC] Boy, the editorial author has a short memory. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress almost 100% of the time from 1933 until 1995. During this 62-year period, we had a balanced/surplus budget for only eight years (1947 – 1949, 1951, 1956, 1957, 1960, 1969) and most of those were during the post World War II economic boom. Please, don’t tell me Democrats are the “responsible adults.”

The answer isn’t to elect Democrats. History shows Democrats don’t care about deficit spending any more than too many current Republicans. For those few Democrats who do allege to oppose deficit spending, the “solution” is invariably to increase taxes. As we’ve seen, this approach merely increases spending and eventually bogs down the economy and reduces tax collections. It’s not a coincidence that nontrivial tax cuts always result in improved economic activity.

The answer is for Republicans to promote and vote for candidates who really believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. This means “full blooded” conservatives need to wrest control of the Republican Party from the Rockefeller Republicans. In PA, Rep. Melissa Hart and Sens. Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter – among too many others – fall into the Rockefeller Republican category. If we fail to return the Republican Party to conservative principles, we conservatives need to break away from the Republican Party and form our own party. It doesn’t do us any good to elect Republicans who govern with liberal principles.