Redstate

I feel compelled to mention that Clinton made spending cuts when he took office as part of his deficit reduction package.

And this happened BEFORE the 1994 revolution. Yes, he also tried to enact Hillary-Care but it didn't work. And yes he also put some tax increases in that plan.

I think spending will slow down in the next two years and I think certain parts of the Bush Tax Cuts may not get extended...most likely on the top 1/2 percent.

I think they could and should do without ANY tax increases but if the tax cuts are allowed to expire on those earning more than $300,000 or so thus allowing them to go back to 2000 levels and that's all they do in terms of taxes, it's not so bad. We've seen much worse from the GOP in the past 6 years and I don't see anyone here defecting.

The bottom line is that spending of all kinds is WAAAAAY up over the last 6 years....not just defense spending but non-defense discretionary spending as well...as well as non-discretionary spending..which got a real boost thru medicare part D.

Anyway, Bush has a veto pen. May the man finally use it. Let the Dems get cute and offer a larger-than-it-should-be spending bill. Let Bush veto it. It'll do him some good. Let Bush tell them to revise it, let the GOP offer amendments to bills, MAKE THEM ALL WORK!!!

I think the GOP will come away in better shape as will Bush's popularity if they just do their part of the process and stand by principles.

_Don't tread on me._

They also raised taxes in 1993, so it still leaves open the question: when the the Democrats last LOWER taxes AND spending?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I know they raised taxes at the same time and I mentionned that if you read it again.

But spending did come to a crawl both before and after the 1994 revolution. That's all I'm saying. Let's be even-handed in our critiques and praises on taxes and spending. I try to be.

_Don't tread on me._

The worst year in history was with a Democrat controlled Senate and Bush in the White House. So I'm not really sure where you get these crazy ideas about Democrats being fiscally conservative. Or for that matter, about letting tax cuts expire being not as bad as tax increases (they are the exact same thing) or that the Democrats will leave them in place below $300k (haven't seen that yet... "the rich" seem to start at about $34k, not $300k).
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Don't read into what I'm saying too much as if I have some agenda.

I was repsonding to a claim that I think is partly an exaggeration and showed this by taking a simple look at Clinton's tenure.

Let's not dwell on it. It is what it is. I was criticizing a heavy-handed broad brushed statement...not making one.

_Don't tread on me._

The post you replied to claimed the Democrats never cut both spending and taxes.

Your misleading reply brought up the irrelevant fact that they cut a few programs back a little in Clinton's first two years. However we ALL know that President Clinton went back on his middle class tax cut pledge those years, and instead raised taxes on everyone (and raised them so high, he later claimed during the second year that even HE thought they were raised too high).

And here, let's just settle this with some proof:

Spending was already going down before Clinton got a hand in it; so to be completely fair it's more accurate to say Clinton was just continuing Bush's work. The only thing tha t changed under all-Democrat rule was REVENUE, which went up.

So JohnCV's question remains unanswered, despite your distractions. You lose. Good day, sir. (Ah, Roald Dahl..)

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I meant to say that in his second TERM, Clinton confessed he set taxes too high.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

He should have moved to cut taxes in his second term as a surplus approached.

_Don't tread on me._

I'm not going to make this personal because I don't know you personally...only thru your very overly-assertive, aggressive, competitive and stand-off-ish posts thru a computer screen. I find it really annoying. I hate being agrued to when I'm discussing. The harsh blow-back I continually get from you seems very unprovoked from my end.

As for your "GOTCHA" post. EXCUSE MY FRIGGIN TIRED EYES AT ALMOST 1AM!! My god, you think holding my feet to the fire on a matter of semantics cutting spending AND raising taxes together and inseparably in unison as opposed to just seeing them and judging them within the sentence as two separate actions...as if I commited some willful distortion is advancing or proving anything??

But anyway, yes Clinton raised taxes as he cut spending. I think I stated that in the original post. That was my only point in that part of the post. So what? I said much more than that and I always do.

Besides, you can rationalize it anyway you want (Continued Bush's work, or whatever)Go right ahead. But when I discuss presidents...ALL of them, I think I'm pretty fair. And in my list of problems with Clinton, spending wasn't really one of them.
Don't tread on me.

Yup, I get argumentative with self-described libertarians, liberals, progressives, independents, lefists, and assorted non-Republicans on here when they a) falsely defend Democrats or b) falsely attack Republicans.

That's because we get so many troublemakers on here, I have no patience.

As for the line between a discussion and an argument, well, that's just the way this medium works. I'm sorry that I'm not an expert writer who can keep perfect control of how the tone of my words will be received.

I just write this stuff off the cuff most of the time on here, and all the time in the comments.

And I guess you do too, beacuse the point of your Clinton 'defense' went completely by me.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Patience!

Uncock your guns and chill out.

_Don't tread on me._

CLINTON cut spending?

Here is your chance to revise and resubmit.

How can any self-proclaimed Libertarian be in favor of tax hikes?

The only reason the spending went down and the budget was balanced in the 1990s was because of Newt Gingrich, as any right thinking person would realize.

No way,

I would be one of those voters that you blame. So I would like to discuss it with you and maybe help to clarify some of the issues. Do I "actually believe the D's will reduce spending and cut taxes?"
1. I don't believe you have the question right? It is not that simple. It is not enough to think simply about cutting taxes and reducing spending, the national debt has grown 66% from the day that gw has taken office. That has mandated spending just to service this debt. The dems will also have to spend money to safely get our troops out of the mess that gw has created in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is still the possiblity of reperations, because of his actions which may be seen as illegal in the international community.

2. What does it mean to cut taxes, not all taxes are the same, nor do all taxes carry the term tax? Again from my blog, there is evidence that although there are taxes and rates on the books, those that have more money frequently find ways to get around paying that same rate. So lower income individuals end up paying a higher % of their monies.

These two start to answer your questions.

As to Pence, it is not so much the rejection of the vision, as those are simply words, it is lack of all ability to believe that the vision is any where close to the actual goals. The republicans have realized that if they say what they really want to do, they will be rejected out right. So, they have resorted to the use of deceptive language and stealth tactics to get their true desires through (Clear skies act).

This administration has been a disaster for our country, and it will take us considerable time and effort to remove this stain.

http://iamnotsosure.blogspot.com/

which does not include military spending has increased faster under Bush than any President since LBJ. The Dept. of Ed was supposed to be shut down by Republicans, instead it doubled in size. Ditto almost every other agency. That's before adding the Medicare pork bill, the transportation pork bill, the energy pork bill, and addition of a whole new cabinet office at DHS. Can you think of anything the admin has cut to offset these additions?

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

That'll be worth a trillion or so in a decade.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

It would be nice to raise the limits so the benefit doesn't kick in until people are spending $3000 or more. That would save a lot of money but I don't know if it is possible politically.

The other thing is to let Medicare negociate with the drug industry and squeeze them on prices. I don't know if that is a conservative policy, but that is how the private sector deals with their suppliers.

You have the state start dictating prices and boom, youve got socialism. and boom you start getting controls on formularies and then the drug companies will stop making drugs and stop a lot of r&d because, hey, whats the point?

Which will happen anyway.

What to do about the drug program?

Abolish it comepletely, along with a laundry list of other unconstitutional programs.

Deficit and Debt is good for the economy. If the government is collecting less in taxes, that's more money in your pocketbook. Private individuals making private buying decisions is better for the market.

Ideally the deficit should be 2-4% of GDP. You don't want too much, as you suffer a threat of increased inflation.

The real risk here is the Democrats raising taxes again! That's going to totally devastate the economy! you thought 1% increase in GDP last quarter was bad, wait til you see a -10% decline! That's what we're going to get from the Democrats, and it's amazing that the voters are too stupid to realize that.

the public's general affinity for more spending.

Enough people, IMHO, care enough about spending to accept cuts , or at least cuts in growth.

As for money for education, on a side note, I often wonder what would REALLY happen if education grants and means-tested aid were curbed a bit. By that, I mean that I wonder if universities would respond by controlling the explosive growth tuition since the government would be less inclined to subsidize the run away costs they put on students...thereby cancelling out the benefits of the aide IMO. Just a thought.

_Don't tread on me._

It IS the third rail. It still is. And it isn't the only one out there, either. Medicare is even worse. Medicare is the plutonium rail. You don't even have to touch it to get killed by it. Even messing with the ridiculous USDA-administered (but I repeat myself) school lunch program is a death sentence. We can't even kill off CPB, NEA, or Amtrak.

I am not optimistic about there being any desire among a majority of the population for cuts to anything. Maybe a majority will claim to support generic spending cuts, but when it comes to the details, watch out. I think this is what killed the 1994 revolution more than anything. There was a whole lot of blowback from trying to cut programs in the late 90s.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Let's reduce that program's growth rate then.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I can already see the ads. Poor kids can't get the drugs they need to survive. A little old lady being kicked out of nursing homes and forced to move her oxygen bottle and dialysis machine into a cardboard box under a highway overpass. All because of those mean Republicans. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Remember all the flack we got on the school lunch program... and that wasn't even health care related.

This is also an issue where it would be shifting costs onto the states, which gives everybody at the state level, in both parties, something to scream about. No governor, Republican or Democrat, wants to have to pick up more of the tab for Medicaid.

Medicaid is even harder to cut than Medicare because of the structure of the program (implemented through states) and because of the nature of the recipients (poor).
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

those scare tactics happen even when republicans try to cut the rate of a program's GROWTH.

It is sickening. I cant see how we are ever going to get rid of any programs unless we get rid of the teachers union and maybe in 40 years something might be accomplished.

I'm simply talking about discretionary spending first. Cuts can be made...or at least growth can be frozen for a 2 or 3 year period. Deparments can be combined, shrunk or eliminated. It seems small but I'd be happy to just see the following year's budget be $10 less than the previous year.

As for non-disctetionary spending, it's going to take something more innovative to get that under control.

As far fetched as it sounds, I think Charles Murray is on to the rudimentary foundation of a interesting long term solution to both SS and Medicare/Medicaid and many other social spending programs with the ideas in his book "In our Hands". It's worth a read or a at least a glance over at amazon.

_Don't tread on me._

"But most of the rest of the population *likes* spending."

Believing that got the GOP into this mess. Most Americans agree that government should not solve more problems, government is the problem. As the above polls show, Americans believe Ds are more likely to narrow the deficit and reduce wasteful spending. That's because they have watched as Rs did the opposite. Reagan vetoed a highway pork bill for having a few hundred earmarks... the last one had tens of thousands. Rs are the party of limited government. If we don't limit government, what good are we?

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

The reason why I believe people like spending is because I've seen what happens when we try to cut it. Americans claim to like spending cuts in general BUT:

(1) Will be furious if anyone tries to cut THEIR programs, the government checks THEY receive. "Cut spending" really means "Cut the other guy's spending". But of course, someone is always that other guy.

(2) Once the Democrats and liberal media shine a light on it, Americans don't want spending cut for the elderly, children, the poor, the weak, the tired, ...

Adam,

If you truly believed that government was the problem, then why would you vote for someone to be in the government? How could the government, be the solution to the problem of the government?

http://iamnotsosure.blogspot.com/

...people who'll hit the brakes, not the gas pedal. Government may be unavoidable, but that doesn't mean we can't keep it under check.

This should not be particularly difficult to understand.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Cleanup Needed On Aisle 9 (n/t)

...temporarily, until you came up with a better screenname; the designated 24 hour gloating period has expired, you see. But you just want to cause other people pain.

Bye.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

And just to point out the obvious, Bush and the Republican Congress preferred to work behind the scenes as much as possible, quietly negotiating instead of having Bush veto his own parties bills. Clinton did the same thing when he had a Democratic congress.

So Reagan was in a different situation vetoing the Democratic Congress' legislation, which Bush will now be in. There will be political advantages to Bush vetoing the bills, scoring points against the other party, which didn't apply with a Republican Congress.

This is why (R) behaviour over the past few years is so confounding. The opportunity they had to demonstrate responsibility... gone, just like that. For all the hard work they put in, I can't believe they failed at the most basic tenets of their philosophy.

It may take starting from ground zero again. First, talk the talk - this may require choosing different talkers who havn't lost their credibility. It may also require adjusting the message from one centered entirely on tax cuts, to a message that draws a connection between tax cuts and spending cuts; make cuts in spending equal cuts in taxes (and debt reduction) so that people who see tax cuts that affect them as good (almost all Americans, I presume) learn to associate those with required cuts in spending. Everyone already mentally associates (R) with tax cuts. True, the exit polls suggest people don't really see (R) as likely to cut "middle class" taxes, but maybe that reaction is part of an overall backlash against the spending, corruption, etc. I still think by and large people think of R's as tax cutters. Whats missing, particularly after the past few years, is the association with disciplined businesslike governance.

Second, do what they can to point out how (D)'s actions are inconsistent with sound financial management. Show where they increase spending. Complain double when they do it at the same time that they increase taxes. Worry if they don't do either (but that seems unlikely given past performance).

Third, the next time they get the chance to drive, don't screw it up like they did this time! Not a very detailed plan. Mostly, you're right, they have to hope for cracks that the D's give them, instead of using the huge opening they had by virtue of being the majority.

But again, the general assumption is that D's vote because their party promises bigger government, more government-based solutions, more government control - and they deliver on that. The general assumption has been that R's vote because their party promises smaller government, deference to private sector and community based solutions, and less government control - and when they don't deliver, it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that R's lose interest in supporting the party.

You are right. Republicans have shot themselves in the foot. What will happen is that democrats will be able to increase social welfare programs (making their base happy) while claiming they cut the crazy republican bush spending by a large margin.

How will they accomplish that? Bye bye military.

And they may get away with it because the press will just report the overall spending cut numbers while not pointing out that most of it is defense spending.

It's a valid concern, but I'm not worried. Since the Dems have been out of power for a decade, it was often debated on conservative web sites if the Republicans were just as bad. Well, we will soon find out that the Democrats spend far, far more, and conservatives will be longing for the good old days of 2005 when we had a Republican congress.

Democrats will try to give a phony appearance of being thifty by talking about all the Republican pork they cut, while at the same time replacing it with their own Democratic "earmarks". They will cut the defense budget, and probably find a few oddball programs to trim and brag about. However the Dems will create as many new billion dollar entitlement programs as they can. They'll use liberal republicans like McCain to co-sponsor the bills and thus protect the Democrats from charges of big spending. Once Reid find his nine liberal Republicans (to get the 60 needed to avoid filibuster), most of the other Republicans will cave and vote for the legislation since they couldn't stop it anyway, and will be faced with attack ads if they don't.

Republicans could attempt a version of the same game by criticizing Democratic pork and then vetoing. All in all though, the Democrats are better at politics and want to win more, so the Republican pols will just roll over and agree to a joint budget. That is the price the Repubs pay for getting their districts included, that they support the Democratic budget.

Social security reform is absolutely stone dead as long as Democrats control one house. The biggest Republican accomplishments in a Democratic congress will be stopping some of the many new entitlements which the Dems propose.