Posted on 03/02/2005 11:27:09 AM PST by jmc813
In 1994, I packed my suitcase and went to Washington with dreams of changing the world. For the class of 55 GOP freshmen elected that year, the unifying goal was to bring fiscal discipline to the federal government.
For a time, that dream seemed achievable. We balanced the budget within just a few years, reformed welfare, and brought new levels of efficiency to Congress and to many agencies in Washington's byzantine bureaucracy.
Oh, what a difference a decade makes.
Here we are in 2005. Like an out of control consumer who cuts up his credit cards, pays off his debt, and immediately digs a new, deeper hole, the federal government is back in the red - big time. We're spending on everything from B-2 bombers to Viagra for Medicare recipients to indoor rainforests in Iowa.
The deficit is back with a vengeance, Social Security is slowly going bankrupt. And, once again, we're leaving our kids to pay the bill.
So, what happened to those class of '94 revolutionaries? Like me, many are now doing something else. Even the jefe maximo of the Republican revolution, Newt Gingrich, is spending his time on the speaking and consulting circuit. Official Washington has no appetite for change, so it's no surprise many of us don't work there anymore.
Other budget cutters from that class of '94 now show signs of becoming budget busters, according to a recent analysis by the National Taxpayers Union. Instead of fighting the red ink, they're seeing how much deficit spending they can direct toward their districts.
In a sense, it's hard to blame them. Playing outsider on bill after bill gets you little more than sleepless nights, bad hometown press, retribution from party leaders, difficult re-election battles and fewer lucrative job offers when you leave Congress.
The key problem is that many in Congress think of themselves as representatives but rarely as statesmen. The only way to survive over the long term is to cater to the wishes of their constituencies. And the American public has sent them the same, clear message they've been sending for generations: Open the spending tap as wide as possible, consequences (and rhetoric to the contrary) be damned.
What are the consequences? The simple fact is that if you're a taxpayer under the age of about 40, you're getting the worst financial deal that any generation of Americans has ever received from the government. Your taxes are high now, and they're only going to get higher. Your parents and grandparents will benefit from government-funded health care and retirement stipends, and you'll be left to fend for yourself. The high level of services the government currently provides will drop off as revenues decrease and spending rises. Fiscally, it's the equivalent of being the designated driver and still picking up the bar tab.
If the next generation of Americans wants to change this situation, there are at least three things they have to do. First, get involved in politics as a voter and, more importantly, as an activist. So long as our system is dominated by voters who drive late-model Cadillacs, get a 15 percent senior's discount at Shoney's and never miss an election, it's their interests that are going to get attention, not yours.
Second, don't let your opinions about a single divisive social issue - whether it's gun control, abortion or gay marriage - blind you to the reality that your pocket is being picked no matter what your ideology.
And finally, don't become so wedded to a party label that it obscures the fact that big spenders in Washington spend hugely regardless of party label.
To whatever extent the revolution is sputtering, which it isn't in the larger sense, it's because of failed leadership.
Bob totally lost my respect when he showed up in Iowa in '02 in support of the RINO Greg Ganske who was running in the U.S. Senate primary against one of the finest young conservative candidates I've ever seen, Bill Salier.
Bob Barr Blathering BUMP.
"Official Washington has no appetite for change, so it's no surprise many of us don't work there anymore."
Official Washington didn't have any appetite for change when he worked there, either, yet he wasn't writing articles like this then, and the House was passing pork like it was Thanksgiving in Trichinosis Town, all the while mouthing conservative platitudes like today's GOP does. Barr is holier-than-thou while he sits in the same pew.
It might keep the Jihadies too busy with their young boys and goats to have time to attack us? :)
Not especially. We're going to need them, I do believe. The biggest part of the budget is transfer payments to individuals, much of that is so called "entititlements". That's where the problem is, and that's where the cuts should be. Defense spending is up a little, but as a fraction of the GDP, and of the federal budget, it's still near record lows. We spent way more in the 1950s, with no hot war at all going on. And the Democrats, in the person of JFK, said we weren't spending enough on defense then. Times have changed.
Rep. Linder was by no means a weak opponent and the race was in Linder's district.
Do many Republicans think about this fact anymore?
I appreciate your replies.
I am absolutely not for repealing any tax cuts. I think we should move to get closer year by year by continuing incremental tax cuts until we have a fairly uniform rate. I also think the tax code needs simplification and the IRS needs reform. Those two things will help a lot. I appreciate W's and Congress' tort reform bill. I also like W's idea to cut 150 programs. It's a start but one that Congress needs to carry through.
Making Social Security solvent is going to cost the gov't a lot. I think they are looking at a $2 trillion shortfall. The personal accounts would be a big plus but they themsleves don't make it solvent. Greenspan sees the accounts as a way to promote savings among Americans. He also says that the gov't should not have been promising things it could not deliver and he was talking about this shortfall problem. In the end I guess a respectable cut of benfits coupled with a short increase in the retirement age might be a start. But gov't needs to trim back some to absorb the rest of that shortfall. Do we really need gov't subsidized indoor rainforests, chicken farms, or "alternative" lifestyle museums?
Right now all I am asking is that the mandatory spending be put under control and systematically trimmed back to "safe" levels. 55% feels way too high for my comfort. And the rate is increasing yearly. If that's a portent of things to come, can we say United States of Socialism?
I agree with you that we are better off today with an $11 TRIL economy than a $7 TRIL economy. I am not for pinching pennies at the expense of GDP growth. I think it's very important that we continue to grow the GDP in the 3-5% range. But I don't see rather modest cutbacks in a budget of $2.57 TRIL as something that will hurt GDP. After all isn't the myth that GDP is dependent upon expanding gov't a LIBERAL myth designed to grow their power and farm their pork?
I agree that we should pay off the debt slowly. Another poster somewhere else on FR explained to me that having SOME debt is good because it means foreigners have trust in America. I happen to think that's a reasonable position. Perhaps not getting rid of all debt but getting it down to a manageable $1.5 - $2 TRIL. Maybe shoot for a modest but attainable $50 BIL surplus in FY07 and increase it to $75 BIL in FY08 and $100 BIL FY09. We don't need to go for broke. But it will be very difficult to get budgetary control with mandatory spending acting the role of a crocodile devouring everything in its path, getting bigger and bigger. That's why we need the 150 cuts to go through and we need more of the same from W and Congress each year after.
Bottom line, I just don't want to see us going the way of Europe. It would be a shame.
Haven't you kids been told that it is not polite to badmouth another Freeper without pinging them?
A two T shortfall is small. Over 20 years it 100 billion per year. Cake. Compare with TENS of Trillions of dollars if we stay on the same benefit/funding track
The savings accounts WILL make SS solvent by replacing the benefit that the gov would have to provide through growing securities.
Sorry, Bob.
After all isn't the myth that GDP is dependent upon expanding gov't a LIBERAL myth designed to grow their power and farm their pork?
In the short term government spending does help. But of course in the long term it is inefficient and lowers productivity. If you actually cut the budget by 10%, you would have a recession as the unemployed gov workers (including military) ripple through the economy.
A freeze or even growth of 1-2% per year in spending would lower the debt % because the GDP is growing twice or three times as fast.
THE WORST thing we could do- even over lowering soc security benes is to raise the payroll tax. This would shrink the labor supply and create unemployment. This is execlty the formula you have in germany and france.
I don't think Greenspan agrees with your peachy view of the situation. Nevertheless I hope you are right that it's no problem.
However, you have to agree with me that 55% mandatory spending sounds too much a social nirvana in the making. Regardless of S.S., mandatory spending needs to see actual reductions, with the goal of a FY surplus.
Big loud troublemaker? How's that, by telling the truth? Are you ashamed that your party leaders say one thing and do another when it comes time to put the mill to the grindstone? Republicrats, RINOs, or however you want to refer to them seem a bit too common in both the US and many state legislatures. I always thought the main platform of the Republican party was to reduce government size, spending, and taxation. Has this happened at all over the last eight years? The simple answer is NO. We have a deficit of record proportions, a debt that may never be able to be paid off, and a bunch of fiscally irresponsible representatives in both the Senate and the House. I for one like to hear what Mr. Barr has to say, because to me it sounds like the truth.
I see what you are saying. I still want to see a reduction of the percentage of mandatory spending and a reduction in actual dollar amounts, too. Plus I think an actual reduction in the national debt by even $1 trillion would boost economic confidence.
Look how the stock market has been sputtering around since W's reelection. 10200-10850. Back and forth - back and forth for 90 or more days. Pathetic, really. I suspect there is an underlying and unmentioned semi-nervousness about the year after year deficits and in fact the $4 trillion something Big One. Keeping GROWTH below the rate of GDP is important but nothing will boost confidence in the way that actual debt reductions and surpluses will do.
That's my opinion.
Yes, it seems hard to be a Republican President when most of your constituents in Congress are pushing bills at you that do nothing to help reduce the deficit. I think there needs to be much more belt tightening going on up on the hill. It shouldn't be "how much can I get for a useless project for my district?", but "What useless project can we EightySix and save some money?". I really don't see that happening in the legistalture. I see a lot of tax relief and a call for fiscal responsibility from the White House, now let's have some reciprocation from Congress, please.
Yeah. Those indoor rain forests certainly help with the war effort.
Don't let Bob Barr near your gun collection, either.
This is about Greenspan's testimony earlier today:
[ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1354619/posts ]
A 'surplus' would be the worst thing possible. The last time we had 'surplus' congress and clinton ran around stupid and spent the surplus five times. Better to run a small deficit of say 100B and be 'poor'.
Otherwise, new programs (like prescription drugs) will inevitably pop up to spend the 'surplus' or peace 'dividend'
Of course, when the unsustainable cap gains party ends like it did in march of 2000, we are left with paper 'surplus' projections AND all of the new spending.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.