This month a Republican senator from Utah, a Democratic congressman from West Virginia and a Republican-turned-Democrat senator from Pennsylvania have been beaten in their bids for re-election . They all have one thing in common: They are members of an Appropriations Committee.
There is an old saying on Capitol Hill that there are three parties -- Democrats, Republicans and appropriators. One reason that it has been hard to hold down government spending is that appropriators of both parties have an institutional and political interest in spending.
Their defeats are an indication that spending is not popular this year. So is the decision, shocking to many Democrats, of House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey to retire after a career of 41 years. Obey maintains that the vigorous campaign of a young Republican in his district didn't prompt his decision. But his retirement is evidence that, suddenly this year, pork is not kosher.
It has long been a maxim of political scientists that American voters are ideologically conservative and operationally liberal. That is another way of saying that they tend to oppose government spending in the abstract but tend to favor spending on particular programs.
In the past rebellions against fiscal policy have concentrated on taxes rather than spending. In the 1970s, when inflation was pushing voters into higher tax brackets, tax revolts broke out in California and spread east. Ronald Reagan's tax cuts were popular, but spending cuts did not follow. Bill Clinton's tax increases led to the Republican takeover and to tax cuts at both the federal and state levels but spending boomed under George W. Bush.
The rebellion against the fiscal policies of the Obama Democrats, in contrast, is concentrated on spending. The Tea Party movement began with Rick Santelli's rant in February 2009, long before the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts in January 2011.
What we are seeing is a spontaneous rush of previously inactive citizens into political activity, a movement symbolized but not limited to the Tea Party movement, in response to the vast increases in federal spending that began with the Troubled Asset Relief Program legislation in fall 2008 and accelerated with the Obama Democrats' stimulus package, budget and health care bills.
The Tea Party folk are focusing on something real. Federal spending is rising from about 21 percent to about 25 percent of gross domestic product -- a huge increase in historic terms -- and the national debt is on a trajectory to double as a percentage of GDP within a decade. That is a bigger increase than anything since World War II.
Now the political scientists' maxim seems out of date. The Democrat who won the Pennsylvania 12th Congressional District special election opposed the Democrats' health care law and cap-and-trade bills. The Tea Party-loving Republican who won the Senate nomination in Kentucky jumped out to a big lead. The defeat of the three appropriators, who among them have served 76 years in Congress (and whose fathers served another 42), is the canary that stopped singing in the coal mine.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/The-gathering-revolt-against-government-spending-94603774.html#ixzz0ovqWTIEw
Good entry. People need to understand that this level of spending is unsustainable. Yeah, that's going to mean cutting some programs and eliminating others.
ReplyDeleteWe can see at the local level an example of this waste when Mark Mallory is constantly groveling for federal money to build a streetcar.
Excuse me? We're running deficits of over $1 trillion/year. How does the federal government afford to have money for streetcars? That's one program that should be entirely eliminated.
That's untrue. The only thing keeping that spending so high is the war and non-war defense spending. But, using COAST math, a less-than $1B budget cut is a much better way to plug a $1T deficit than cutting into over $300B in wasted spending that is getting us nothing in return.
ReplyDeleteMaybe when you people pull your heads out of the dirt, the rest of us will actually believe you really care about spending.
As it stands today, you simply focus on framing everything that you are socially, morally, or bigoted against in terms of what manufactured amount of taxpayer dollars could be saved if only you were to get your narrow-minded ways.
Streetcar supporter above translated - if you don't support the federal government spending your grandchildren's future income on local streetcar projects, you are narrow-minded, bigoted, and socially and morally flawed.
ReplyDeleteIt's no wonder the Enquirer editorial board recently criticized the intolerance of streetcar supporters:
"Some advocates' intolerant tone doesn't help, either. Streetcar supporters undermine their credibility and effectiveness when they express contempt for any viewpoint other than their own. That's not the way to foster civic dialogue and progress."
And concern-trolling so-called "budget hawks" spend all their energy fussing over expenditures that comprise less than 1% of the budget, because they don't like transit, urban development, poor people having homes, or other things they term "moral hazards".
ReplyDeleteHowever, for COAST, war isn't a "moral hazard" but a wholly endorsed means to stimulate a war industry.
We should take on ALL questionable expenditures. And fed spending on streetcars is among the first round of items that should be eliminated, not just cut. Do you disagree?
ReplyDelete- Fiscal Conservative, (aka "concern troll")