Wednesday, November 24, 2010


So, somewhere around 80 new peeps got sent to congress with the mandate to shrink government spending.  Last couple times that happened, it didn't work out that way after they took office.  

Ronald Reagan said he would achieve a balanced budget.  He never even proposed one.  What he did was probably correct because we finished off the cold war by printing defense dollars faster than the Russkies could create redeemable rubles.  Still the budget grew in high single or low double digits all of his years.  

Then came the "Contract with America"  class.  Their terms saw two 13% increases in federal spending.

A lot of so-called Progressives will argue that this means the conservatives are liars and promise-breakers.  I don't think that is necessarily the case.  I think these unkept promises are just evidence of how difficult it really is to turn the ship of state around.  

So that's the one argument that this isn't going to be any different.  It's just too hard to resist deeply entrenched spending or, worse "relatively out-of-control" spending (This is an actual CBA term).

The argument that it'll be different this time is more interesting.  These new electees are much more accountable to a smaller, more identifiable, more critical group of people than before.  If nothing else, the tax protesting types have shown they know how to win GOP primaries.  The pentagon and the bureaucracies will push back hard.  It is possible that the newly composed Congress could achieve a "Near No-Growth" budget.  If they did, it would mean the rudder on the ship of state had at least been turned, even  if not a full turnaround. 

If you see six and seven percent gross increases in expenditures, I guess it's "hate the game, not the playah."


At 11:00 AM, November 25, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many signers, like John Shimkus, broke their "Contract with America" by ignoring their pledge to no more than six terms in office?

At 11:57 AM, November 25, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's like taking candy from a baby .. but the baby gets to vote the parent out. Will the babies (including rich babies with lobbyists) vote out anyone that suggests discipline?

Many suggest it is too late to turn the ship of state ... the supertanker is already scraping the rocks, and the drunk captain is still saying "full speed ahead, get it up on a plane".

But the money goes to more entitlement booze and government union playahs, instead of lightening up and putting nitro in the private sector tanks.

Democrats still spout that debt is not a problem, and they still have more control. "This time" might be different for some of the 80, but we probably need another election (after more pain) to root out the biggest offenders.

With the old crew like Barney Frank still in power, it is hard to put too much blame on the Tea party newcomers just yet. The rocks are in sight ... and Obama/Reid/BigMedia still have most control. They will scream like banshees at any effort to take away their punch bowl, even as the ship is listing.

When we stop letting the Gucci Gulch lobbyists write the bills (like the financial "reform" bill), then maybe we'll have turned a corner.

My prediction is like Mr. T's ... more "PAIN".


At 12:21 PM, November 27, 2010, Anonymous Jason said...

I think it sounds good to say we need to reign in spending...but then the young bucks get into office and actually see the budget (hopefully not for the first time, but you never know) and realize the only significant deficit impact they can make is to 1.) Cut Social Security and Medicare or 2.) Cut Defense or 3.) Raise taxes. None of those tend to get you or your party re-elected.

At 7:11 AM, November 28, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill needs to stop drinking the Kook Aid and check out Frank Rich in the Sunday Times if he thinks its the big bad Dems who are making out like bandits:

At 9:04 AM, November 28, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Is "Kook Aid" a typo or not? Well played.


At 9:06 AM, November 28, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Well, they think they can make some cuts by hurting farmers, but just successful farmers. Then they're gonna "cut waste". I love that one.


At 11:41 AM, November 28, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah ... look to the liberal NY Times editorial page, or liberal Frank Rich to get fair and balanced news.

Kooky Rich was surprised that a poll just after the election didn't show a change in people's opinion of whether the country is on the right track. Well duh ... the new folks aren't even in office yet, and they didn't change most of the big spender fixtures that are still entrenched, despite Congress's 14% approval rating.

The progressive/Marxist left want the opposite of the 70% that want less government and fewer entitlements. Some of those progressives are Republicans, so it would be kooky to try to put the blame on the newcomers if change doesn't happen in the next two years.

But one of the Democrat talking points lays blame for all future economic problems on these "Tea party" people. So here, ABC is already laying the groundwork for the Democrats argument in 2012 ... "you tried the Tea party and they failed to fix everything ... so better to go back to the progressive/communist 5 year plan".

I just breezed the rest of the Rich article, which just covered the basic Democrat talking points, trying to explain away the Tea party phenomena. 70% want less government ... old style Repub's and Dem's offer BIG and BIGGER.

To Jason's comment ... the "Gucci Gulch lobbyists" have carved out tax breaks for special interests ... that is where more revenue should be found. And there is a lot of money to be carved out of the entitlements and defense that is really just bureaucracy and waste/fraud.

This will take years to undo. I think it would be "popular", but dirty money can buy elections. But if there is one thing that could mean "this time it's different" ... it would be the internet breaking the liberal/corporate stranglehold on the media.

(I get extra space to defend the "kook" charge, right?)

At 7:35 AM, November 29, 2010, Anonymous Jason said...

Cutting fraud/waste/tax breaks for people with expensive lobbyists is a nice start, but I'm a young guy and even I've heard that tune a billion times from both Democrats and Republicans. I would have to see the numbers of what the net gains would be for reducing fraud/waste after increasing expenditures for increased oversight. The political issue would still be there though- your political opponents can say you are cutting Medicare and Social Security for senior citizens or you are weak on defense in a dangerous world. Just look at the recent debate at Medicare Advantage overpayments.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home